Special Report
The matrix tells you to always trust science because it’s the voice of reason. But science is actually a very emotional and cultural practice.
Scientists aren’t gods.
They don’t have all the answers.
They especially don’t have the answers to your Big Life Questions, like:
- “What is the meaning of my life?”
- “What should I do with my life?”
- “How can I make the best of my life?”
- “How can I lead a happy life?”
- “How can I be emotionally healthy?”
- “What do my emotions mean?”
- “Why do I have certain emotions (that don’t feel good)?”
- “Are my emotions good for me or bad for me?”
- “How can I make the best of all of my emotions?”
Scientists are people, just like you.
Putting science up on a pedestal is dangerous. Handing all your life decisions over to people you’ve never met is dangerous.
It’s healthier to celebrate and use science for what it’s good for, not follow a fairytale about its magical powers. It’s healthier to look at how science is actually practiced, rather than how it’s portrayed by cultural myths.
Introducing “5 Reasons Why Science Won’t Give You All the Answers to Life”
Before I started college, I had a pretty unhealthy view of science. I saw it as one big institution meant to break down anything spiritual or meaningful.
Studying cognitive science for four years at UC San Diego changed my outlook completely.
It’s not that science is designed to destroy intuition.
It’s that it’s not prepared to answer so many of the questions that people at present can only answer through intuition.
And over the years it became clear to me that science is actually… rooted in intuition itself!
As AI Researcher Dr. Ben Goerztel has said:
“[S]cience is based on finite sets of finite-precision observations. That is, all of scientific knowledge is based on some finite set of bits, comprising the empirical observations accepted by the scientific community. To extrapolate beyond this bit-set, some kind of assumption is needed. To put it another way, some kind of ‘faith’ is needed.”
It took me four years of undergraduate experience to really see this bigger picture of science. I’ve broken up what I learned into a 23-page report.
In this report, you learn how:
- Science is a Cultural Practice
- The Scientific Method is Subjective
- Science Minimizes Your Subjective Experience
- Science is Often Disconnected from the Real World
- Science Can’t Show You the Bigger Picture
What you need to do next
Enter your email address below to get the special free report “5 Reasons Why Science Won’t Give You All the Answers to Life.”
(This will sign you up for the Mindful Construct newsletter, which kicks off with the 10-part e-class, Your Life is Your Construct.)
You’ll get an email asking you to confirm that you want to receive the newsletter. Click on that link to get the first lesson. (And put me on your white list to make sure the lessons get delivered.)
I will not rent, sell, or otherwise share the information collected. And you can unsubsribe from the newsletter at any time.
Share your thoughts
Have you read the report yet? Want to share your thoughts?
Feel free to post them below!
{ 15 comments… read them below or add one }
This report is courageous and mind-blowing. I simply cannot contain my excitement about the amazing turns this blog is taking. Witnessing your evolution as a writer, an entrepreneur, and an exceptional human being has been sheer pleasure. Melissa, you are just totally insane to me.
Thank you WN, your kind words really mean a lot to me.
I’m so glad you enjoyed the report, these things have been on my mind for a few years now and it’s such a great feeling to have them out in the wild!
Hi Melissa,
I just finished reading the report.
While I believe that science is limited, and that the scientists performing scientific research may not always apply scientific methods properly, or are honest in their undertakings, I still believe that science is immensely useful, and not as subjective as you made it out to be in the report.
I’m not disputing what you said, but think it’s a problem that we can deal with, without discrediting science. And we certainly cannot rely on science to answer all of life’s questions, as you rightly pointed out.
I’m a huge fan of Objectivism, Ayn Rand’s philosophy, and think that it deals very well with the limits of science, and to what degree empiricism (the philosophy at the heart of science) is flawed. Ayn Rand offers some interesting insights on how best to make sense of the world, with the aid of science.
What I love about science is that it accepts the limitations that come with being human. Sadly, rather than say: “it could be, but we don’t know”… Some scientists take the approach of: “It isn’t, because we don’t know!” (And mystics are of the opinion that: “It IS, because we don’t know!”)
I definitely support your advice on working with our emotions and respecting our own observations about who we are and where we are (i.e. our subjective experience), but believe that there are some universal laws applicable to all human beings we can discover together.
Thank you for the thought-provoking report! :D
Hi Haider,
Thanks for sharing your thoughts.
This report wasn’t meant to discredit science, but deconstruct it, as it’s put on an unhealthy pedestal and little understood these days. I can understand your response given your Objectivism background. My training in cognitive science leads to a more constructivist view.
There are trends across all human beings, but right now psychology doesn’t put that bigger-picture view in a way that acknowledges response ability and room for growth (there are a lot of dysfunctional traps). For now, the big questions about emotional health are not adequately explained by mainstream science.
Though, as I indicated a few times, it could one day paint a more accurate and functional picture — especially if those steering the science are aware of its limitations and cultural constructions, and thus more able to mindfully go about research.
Yeah, psychology today is in a very unhealthy place. It’s in desperate need for reform and a massive paradigm shift in how mental health (and the purpose of psychology to begin with) is approached.
Like I said, I can’t argue with the points you raised about science. But I felt sorry for it, too. :P
I am left with a bitter-sweet feeling.
I see the merit behind acknowledging the fact that there are questions in life that science cannot answer, and that scientific studies sensationalized by media need to be taken with a grain of salt. What I have a really hard time swallowing is using examples of vaccination/autism links and conspiracy theories from wanttoknow.info to illustrate the point.
You state that scientific research is done by people, and therefore it’s results are inevitably somewhat subjective. That makes sense to me, but governments and corporations are also ran by people. People with the same emotions and roots as you and me, and if we forget that, it easy to see them as this huge entity capable of much more sinister intent than is really plausible.
I’m all for changing the way the machine of scientific research works so it’s less driven by the will of a corporate bottom line. I love the idea of acknowledging that science ignores real world details and can’t necessarily tell us much about large aspects of life because of this. At the same time, I think the public crusade against vaccinations has had a negative effect on world health, and that a huge chunk of content on wanttoknow.info is implied sensationalist hogwash. Sensational claims and correlations can be made about groups of tidbits of data as well as scientific study results.
It seems that there are some questions where we need the traditional scientific method to help minimize subjectivity to see truths about the world that are masked by our perceptions. And there are other questions that we will never understand better until we explore subjective experience and how it impacts each individual. We need to be careful about what questions deserve what approach though. I don’t think that “Why did my son develop autism?” is one of life’s big questions. I think it’s one of those questions grounded in facts about the physical world that can be best answered in a minimally subjective way (unless the cause for autism is mostly non-physical, in which case vaccinations would be unrelated anyway). Just because science doesn’t have all the answers doesn’t mean it caused the problem.
I am also excited about the expansion of our understanding of epigenetics, and find the message in your report to be a powerful statement of a direction we need to be heading in, and source of self-empowerment. That’s the sweet for me. I just found the associations with conspiracy theory bitter.
Thanks for the feedback Odin.
I’ll be the first to tell you that the bitter comes with the sweet. :)
Hmm, this “really plausible” is probably not something we’d want to get into here. Because there are far more intense resources scratching upon that than WantToKnow… But yes, governments are run by people. Messed up governments are run by messed up people. That’s why we all, as a society, need a much healthier view of and relationship to our emotions.
Odin, I can understand your reaction. Heck, if you have a reaction, don’t deny it. But after you process it, maybe you’ll find that the reaction is shielding you from looking at why it feels so bitter, given that you didn’t really consider the site.
I don’t suspect you would call the New York Times, the Guardian, or Washington Post, hogwash. Yet, those are some of the very sources that WantToKnow references.
That’s why I chose WantToKnow over another conspiracy site laden with green matrix code on black in the background, and bold-faced fear-mongering in the foreground.
Mindful Construct is about deconstructing unhealthy cultural myths. There are unhealthy cultural myths about conspiracies being sensationalist. And yes, there are conspiracies that are unhealthy cultural myths too, and definitely sensationalist.
For a parent of a child who suddenly develops autism, it is an insanely personal and Big Life Question. Just like those other existential questions that were listed.
Agreed.
Epigenetics is something I’d really like to get up to speed on someday, alongside quantum science…
You are right, I did not take enough time to really analyze what they are doing on wanttoknow, and calling it hogwash was a little flippant and undeserved.
Let me put it a better way, and try to explore the “why” of my reaction. I think what they have done is a good thing. They have gathered and summarized a lot of information that should be out in the open to discourage whatever level of cover-up actually does occur. What bothers me is when this information is taken to more fantastic conclusions than it merits.
2 examples:
Did members of our government try to cover up details of the events of 9/11 to hide the instances where their ineptitude or malfunctioning of their organization contributed to allowing it to happen? Yeah, quite possibly. Does this mean members of our government purposely choreographed the 9/11 attacks killing thousands of Americans? I really don’t think so.
Did members of the military try to cover-up that they think that they should be concerned about UFO’s (or maybe purposely leak that to divert attention from other military operations they did not want people to know about)? Yeah, that seems to be the case. Does that mean Earth has been visited by aliens in UFO’s? I doubt it.
I think some of the wording that is put on the face of it insinuates that the grander interpretations are true, when really the details only support the not so grand (but still enough to be upset about) interpretation. I guess that I wish that they would just be clear about what conclusions their evidence supports instead of giving people a slight nudge in the direction that it doesn’t. It seems that we would be more successful at zeroing in on and identifying the truth of what is being covered up rather than being led off the deep end.
Yes, well this all depends on the amount of research and the type of research a person has done. And at some point, you do have to have an opinion, because evidence is evidence, not necessarily proof.
“Their” conclusions might be easier to understand if you spend hours upon hours looking over all the documents listed, but I get what you are saying. They leave you sort of hanging (though WTK has some resources that help with information overwhelm), and with little offers for solutions. You’re led off the deep end because they just dump this pile of details on you, enough to make you upset, without offering much by way of constructivism.
That’s characteristic of various if not all un-cover-up movements, and it’s dysfunctional. Because this delivery format pushes a lot of people away from considering even mainstream sources (like on WTK), and with good reason.
Hello Melissa:
Sign me up.
I have a special interest in this topic. In general terms, I concur with the premise of the report that science does not, by itself, give an answer to all of life’s meaningful questions.
I think this is especially so as it relates to the use of the scientific method to measure, quantify, and define dimensions of subjective phenomena, whether it be feelings, faith, or both.
I look forward to reading your informed perspective.
Fred
Hi Fred, you can scroll up the page and find the section “What you need to do next.” In that section there’s a field for you to enter your email address and then click the “Sign Me Up!” button. After you confirm your email address by clicking a link in the email that follows, the report will automatically be sent to you. :)
No diagramming tool, so I’ll try and sort it all out in linear fashion:
Matrix = Societal beliefs, the Belief Window, culture, etc.
Surrounding the Matrix we have four essential elements of Being:
1. Thought
2. Feeling
3. Action
4. Meta-Cognition and Meta-Affection
(The two terms are really Blooms’ Taxonomy involving the Cognitive Domain–thinking–and the Affective Domain–Feeling)
Cognitive Therapy and most “pop self-help” books work from the premise that if one changes his/her “thinking,” then actions and feelings and the Matrix–all outer circumstances of poverty, sickness, sorrow, etc.–all change accordingly; hence, affirmations, positive thinking, prayer are proposed as the solution to the world’s (and patient’s) lack of harmony and happiness.
In short, the Guru says to the student, Right Thinking = Right Action.
Problem here: The emotions are messengers. One is sad because the Matrix says, “On this day of your father’s death you must be sad.” Likewise, the Doctor says to Holden Caufield in “Catcher in the Rye,” “You are crazy.” What the novel and Salinger are trying to convey to readers is that Holden Caufield is a unique individual, perfectly sane, who is being driven mad by a False Matrix.
Meta-Cognition: Why am I thinking the way I am thinking?
Meta-Affection: Why am I feeling the way I am feeling?
What I gather from Melissa is the reality that we have never really questioned the validity of the Matrix, and it is the Matrix which is the foundation for emotional well-being, right thinking, and right action (harmonious).
Nature versus Nurture theory in a sense.
Change the Matrix–the Environment–and everything else changes. If one has tried rearranging a room according to Feng Shui, the effectiveness of changing the Matrix is immediately experienced. Or if one travels to a different country.
That’s as far as I am . . .
The Big Question:
There’s a lot to be said about the positive effects of changing the environment.
But let’s follow what the Wachowski’s left us a little further.
This could be interpreted in several ways.
One way: A string-theory view of our universe that’s symbolized by the computer-coding of the matrix universe. Matrix = string network. Thus, consciousness at some level affects the vibrations of the strings, of the universe. Neo changes his consciousness (himself) and the strings bend to reflect that.
Another way: There is no “universe” out there that exists independently of a consciousness perceiving it. Or at least, we don’t yet have the ability to verify such because we are bounded by our human perception which is limited and definitely not all-seeing. (You’ll read about this more in the early lessons of the e-class.) This is a less direct metaphor than the first. Bottom line is that we cannot be certain that there is an absolute truth out there independent of human perception. Because how can we know it’s “there” if can’t perceive it? Human perception is what Morpheus calls “electrical signals interpreted by the brain” — all we are ever working with is an *interpretation.* The moment you interpret your reality to be different, it is different… because reality — what’s “real” — is merely electrical signals interpreted by your brain.
So changing your interpretations of the Matrix — changing your relationship to the Matrix — actually changes the Matrix itself. Because again, the Matrix has no real “fixed” state. Well, it does exist by rules that hold it in place — but it has no “fixed” meaning to the humans plugged in. That meaning is up to interpretation.
Did you read what Neo was originally supposed to say at the end of M1? From an earlier draft:
Actually, that’s what the Matrix would have you believe. That external circumstances determine your inner experience. It’s the common cultural belief.
But the Matrix is not the sole foundation, because human interpretation — consciousness — can trump it. You simply construe your circumstances in a different way, and all of a sudden a curse can be your blessing. Externally it wasn’t a “cure” or a “blessing” — but what you made it. Neo can dodge bullets because he understands that his consciousness co-creates his physical “external” experience.
However, the Matrix does have heavy influence — and mostly when you’re still asleep. Waking up entails directly experiencing how you co-create your reality — how your brain interprets life events. All of this will be covered more in the e-class. Once you realize how powerful you really are, there’s no going back to the old program.
It’s tricky drawing the line between culture and the individual, but you can still learn how to better choose which beliefs and interpretations you carry, and which ones you reject.
Thanks for sharing jasray, and feel to share your thoughts on the e-class!
Thank you for this report! It was insightful and said what I’ve been thinking for years. Well done.
Thanks Zephyr, I’m glad it confirms what you’ve been thinking!
{ 2 trackbacks }