Objectionable Science

Before getting to the meat of this short scribing I have to say that declaring Nuclear energy a source of Green energy, as has been done by the British government in the last few days, is an appalling cover up. How anything so polluting as nuclear energy, which leaves disastrous waste products with dangerous lifetimes counted in the thousands of years, can be confused with energy sources such as Wind, Sun and Water is beyond credulity. Obviously something else is going on here. What that may be I leave to the kind readers to conclude for themselves.

However it was not on this topic I wished to write today but on the myth that has run for almost three hundred years or more that the Universe is objective and can be studied as an object. It is true this is a stance that can be argued for, but it is not a very realistic one and leads, as far as I can see, to further ignorance rather than greater wisdom.

Current society, in the West at least, attempts to justify its position by declaring numerical science and statistics as evidence for understanding.

Elsewhere I have written extensively on the subjective nature of the Universe and the presence of Consciousness at every level of expression. Consciousness being the very source, which other traditions have called God, the Tao, the One and by many other names. It is the first of these terms which has caused such confusion that forced Western scientists of a few centuries ago to declare the need for an objective perspective on creation.

Dogma of any kind is dangerous. But nowhere has dogma become more dangerous than in the present world where science denies anything it cannot explain or justify commercially. It attempts to mask the wisdom that questions its ability to adequately explain phenomena by using derogatory terms such as ‘anthropomorphism’, ‘superstition’, and demands ever more rigorous proof, according to its own standards. Incidentally falling short of those standards in very many explanations it offers as rational, scientific and justifiable. The question of nuclear energy being a case in point.

However it was on the plight of animals that I wanted to write. I am reading the most insightful book on pigs that I have come across. It is called ‘The Whole Hog’ and written by Lyall Watson, a true scientist. Besides his own personal encounters with pigs of various species, he records the presence of intelligence demonstrated through hundreds of years by individuals who, recognising the extraordinary capability of pigs, taught them numeracy, literacy and bore witness to their buoyant nature and good humour.

I will not quote from the book for the reader but encourage them to look out a copy for themselves. I am sure that every open minded person will be delighted at a thoroughly enjoyable read, even though the cynically minded scientist may declare that, because it is not written in a jaded style of academia, it cannot be good science. However I doubt that such a scientist has read as extensively as Watson, as evidenced by his narrative and the extensive reference list at the end of the book.

Meerkats (c) superstock

I offer this picture to the reader as evidence of the extremely sensitive nature of animals and declare that any person looking at the image who refuses to accept the very ‘human’ quality of the central characters, is themselves so far removed from life as to be without that very quality they are denying the animals in the image.

Judge for yourself. If I have any advice to give to anyone it would be this. Judge for yourself and trust your own experience and the perspective it brings. It may not be popular or widely held but it is your own. Never stop exploring the wonder of the universe, and don’t be daunted by those who claim to have the answers. They don’t, only you do, and you can always be wrong.

Author: Keith Armstrong

Dance teacher, writer, film-maker, educationalist, enthusiast.