On Skewed Progressions (Part 1)

A Biased Argument

Draft 5.0

i. Classical v. Romantic Thought:
For purposes of this discussion, classical thought processes will pertain to the concrete, rational, technical, deductive and logical modes of reasoning. Romantic thought modes, including the artistic and spiritual, are more abstract. Popular positivist sentiment has promoted classical thinking over the romantic. The imbalance produced, or skewness, is attributable to cultural and societal forces which demand economic considerations are the only valid viewpoint. Both Capitalism and Marxism suffer from this defect. As a result, the abstract is given more leeway. Nobody cares about impure thoughts, only deeds. For mass-culture, classical ascendancy over the romantic is inevitable. The immediate overrides the intellectual as the concrete supplants the abstract. The resultant skewed perspective creates a climate where solutions to pressing problems may remain unseen. All could pay the price for it. Indeed, the scientific method has superseded science itself. Although a positivist, Werner Heisenberg believed acceptance of General Relativity[1] and Quantum Mechanics would reverse this disparity albeit through reductionism. However, the population has no real concept of these extremes of physical phenomena. Star Trek does not educate. Even many scientists never study such mathematically rigorous topics. The difficult philosophical implications are not esteemed over myths like progress, and hence have no influence over the general culture and society. Even scientists ignore the philosophy, which has become divorced from the considerations of practical science. Philosophy has become entirely esoteric. Only results pay the bills and ensure continued funding. Adversely creating very myopic viewpoints, this skew may confirm the worst fears concerning progress. For instance, radioactive decay chains and deadly isotopic products will persist for millions of years. Policy is usually unable to extend its grasp beyond an insignificant five years. These issues are disconcerting for a culture obsessed with the eternal present, and all solutions are rendered impotent as a consequence. Future generations will condemn us for it. Comfort has very little place in nature. While being a primary human concern which motivates the capacity for ignoring many important realities, comfort may be considered a sign of decadent sentience. The romantic might help direct human thought toward more long range perspectives rather than its current degeneration into decadence and nihilism. Most religions, obsessed with death, are equally guilty by seeding the soil for the current reality. However, their failures were the result of ignorance rather than a matter of choice. Art has become a statement against the world. The classical negation of the romantic is directly responsible for many important complementary relationships to be missed. Therefore, many causal and effectual linkages remain hidden behind skewed points-of-view, and cultural evolution stagnates in a mediocre quagmire. The immediate simply cannot be regarded eternal with nonexistent consequences. Eventually, the world will choke on the divergence.

ii. Science v. The Scientific Method:
Science is a complicated process for answering why? The answer is not often simple or even possible to determine. Systemic complexity, fundamental uncertainty relationships, and even sentimentality hinder investigation. Contrary to classical expectations, no answer can be a very profound answer. The non-existence of an ether medium for electromagnetic wave propagation is a case in point. The failed experiment of Michelson and Morley, in the 1880s, was one of the most important realizations in the history of science. A disappointment lead to the development of relativistic and quantum theories. Some roads lead to surprising places. Other paths are dangerous. Demands for efficiency may create a product before its implications may be realized. The atomic bomb, with roots in the investigations of the behavior of clouds, springs to mind as an extreme case. Was it inevitable? Motivators are not always rational, or (worse) all-too-rational. Resources are squandered by a system with little regard for long range and flexible planning. Comfort and security are poor benchmarks. During economic downturns, increased leisure time may be utilized to demonstrate the supposed contentment of the worker whose idleness is not a virtue. Otherwise idleness is a bad thing. Nothing is said regarding any other issue. The technical determines value with accounting tools and concepts. Waste is inefficient. The scientist has been supplanted by his own method, and reduced to supporting roles. This situation was inevitable. Divergent smaller research programs would be detrimental for progress, which must visibly slog forward. Even though most important discoveries have been made on a small budget, bigger is esteemed better. Cookie cutter science is a cultural disease infecting establishment science via its particular contact vectors. Specifics are favored over the general. No great projects are undertaken, rather duplicating minutiae. Hence, we search for cures rather than root causes. The best work is specific. Major breakthroughs are ceasing. In this verbal world, the creative spark can be detrimental except when directed toward designated domains. The specialist is obsessed from a professional standpoint, by technical necessity, with a very narrow range. Little is seen beyond. This system produces bright dullards whom only comprehend their narrow roles. All become good Americans. Although the actual science is independent, scientific establishments are a product of their environment. Some remarkable work may still emerge. However, under the increasingly narrow confines determined by funding constraints, directed by policy,[2] important and necessary scientific break-throughs are less likely to occur. Creativity is stifled. Money rules everything. Occasionally, one hears some lament concerning the decline of genius (usually from those squelching it). Rather than something innate, the regression is the result of an environment which does not support or encourage it. Only short gains may be realized before finally bending to the dictates of technical necessity. Rationalizations aside, calculations are only a small part of the whole. Lest advancement be halted by progress, the 19th Century positivist mindset should finally be discarded. By eliminating context and individualistic perception, quantitative reductionism would reduce all to ultra-defined and fragmentary meaningless. Every experience may not be adequately described by mathematics, or any other language...
[1] The geometric theory of gravitation developed by Albert Einstein concerning the very large, whereas quantum theory involves the very small. The two theories are also incompatible in important respects.
[2] A useful subject best studied for any effective utilization and even manipulation of any system for maximum advantage.