The Scientific Method — BADN — 4 of 7
This is part 4 of a 7-part series.
Click here for part 1
“In speaking of the “savage” or “primitive mind”, we are, of course, using a very clumsy expression. We shall employ the term, nevertheless, to indicate the characteristics of the human mind when there was as yet no writing, no organized industry or mechanical arts, no money, no important specialization of function except between the sexes, no settled life in large communities.” — James Harvey Robinson, Mind in the Making, Chapter 7: Our Savage Mind
We’ve come a long way from what Robinson calls Our Savage Mind. Gone are the days of having nothing but our impressions of this world to interpret through. Over time and with great struggle, we’ve developed tools and methods of experimentation that give us deeper, more detailed insight into our world and one another.
Despite the slowly-dying cultural meme that “Science” is cold methodology that detaches people from their sense of humanity, turning them into academic robots of some sort, there is no method nor ideology on the planet that has shed more light onto how human beings are so deeply connected with this world and all of life on it.
“You don’t see the plug connected to the environment, so it looks like we’re free, wandering around… But take the oxygen away, we all die immediately. Take plant life away, we die, and without the sun, all the plants die, so we are connected.” — Jacque Fresco
Nor is there any such method for allowing us an intimate, detailed awareness of the growth, interactions of and bonds between species. Not only that, but it was this method in its most primitive form, coupled with human creativity, that enabled us not only to come together and form the basis for an organised, civilised world, but also to overcome outdated, oppressive superstitions about behaviour and health.
To describe this method simply: it is the process of observation, asking questions and seeking answers through testing, then applying the feedback. It’s no longer about what sounds right to us, nor about what works to control others, but it’s about what nature tells us works and what doesn’t.
To put it another way: the Scientific Method is about discovering what we can with the tools and education we have, and no longer filling the gaps of our not-knowing with what we’d like to be true.
Part of the central focus of the philosophy being presented here is to apply the scientific method to the language of our thinking as individuals. The goal is to influence the development of a method- and results-based social structure through the wisdom of the individual and the general application of all ancient and modern wisdom to the way society functions.
The claim is that this is preferable to concepts of social structures springing out of people’s imaginations, being implemented in the world because it sounds right or serves the status quo, and then everyone else having to deal with the consequences.
The Scientific Method is the only method available to us now that, when uninhibited, actively tries to disprove itself. And although people might have theories or suspicions about the outcome of their experiments and education exploration, their starting attitude remains one of “I don’t know — let’s find out” instead of “this is what I believe — this is my truth, and this is my faith in that truth, and because of my faith, my belief is really a knowing” or something along those lines.
This simple shift in attitude and approach opens people up to a whole new world of possibilities and insights as they are no longer constrained by the corrupting, divisive, self-preserving tendencies of their own thinking. On top of that, it brings people together in quests for insight and understanding, rather than keeping them separate and in battle over whose ideology sounds better.
A couple of basic realisations that we can have as a result of the Scientific Method revealing to us just how connected we all truly are; that individual problems don’t stop with the individual, that toxic clouds of pollution don’t respect national, ideological or identity-oriented barriers, or that homelessness and starvation is actually a social problem, not a personal one.
For example, the kinds of psychological and behavioural consequences of starvation on people are well-known, and some of the most devastating of them are a range of genetic birth defects that will impact generations to come. Alongside that, the violence that may be experienced by homeless or starving communities, and the diseases, infections and genetic defects they may suffer, will not stay restricted to their own personal lives. These people will go out in to the world and, one way or another, their problems will be shared.
With that unifying realisation now recognised, and so long as we’re living in a technical balance with nature, there is simply no scientific reason that anyone should starve or freeze to death, and part of the intent here is to realise that it is impractical to live under institutions that give rise to such unnecessary suffering. Interestingly, there will always be many political, religious and economic justifications for allowing the suffering and deprivation of others, and that is a crucial part of the claim that these ideological institutions need to be outgrown.
Either way, shrugging off the suffering and saying it’s their own fault, or that it’s simply how things work, no longer cuts it in the modern age.
When we do apply the scientific method to the language of our thinking, it becomes clear that trying to cling to belief and ideology is highly likely to become blinding in our search for truth, and potentially dangerous on a social/institutional level in how we justify the suffering of others. While the Scientific Method requires feedback from nature to verify its claims, moral and intellectual structures in a belief- and ideology-oriented world only require movements of logic to make decisions that potentially concern the lives and well-being of others.
The old method of thinking what you want or accepting what sounds about right and hoping for the best is incompatible with any philosophical discipline that is sincerely concerned with discovery of truth and creating conditions that support freedom and unity. My personal suspicion is that it’s completely incompatible with the modern world as a whole, which could be why the consequences of not overcoming it are so disastrous.
As a final note, and back to the point of creating conditions that support freedom and unity, we should remain in a constant state of awareness and vigilance regarding the rise of scientific and technocratic dictatorships. These styles of dictatorships are what can occur when the tools of science and technology are applied to current conditions and institutions — that is not what’s being advocated here.
What will occur in these dictatorships, if at all, is a superimposed uniformity which masquerades as unity. The institutions will leverage scientific information to dictate the lifestyles, thinking and behaviours of others to make them manageable and bring them in-line. No freedom is possible under these conditions.
What the BADN discipline encourages is freedom for individuals and families, with the scientific method “being applied to society for human concern” as Jacque Fresco puts it.
The goal is to use our science and technology wisely, to enable all possible freedom in determining what kind of life you want to live, while also being guided by an educated philosophy, empowered by science and technology, to reduce the likelihood of division and the deprivation and suffering of others to such a minimal level as to no longer be such a constant pressing concern.
This will never be achieved in a belief- or ideology-oriented world, as division is an intrinsic part of these systems, and it simply produces far too much justification for social control, harming each other, or, through an unfounded assumption of separation, just allowing it to happen and accepting it as a norm.
We spend a ridiculous amount of time and energy developing clever and impressive ways of killing one another, and it is part of the goal of this discipline to re-focus this energy into enhancing the standard of living for all people. With the kinds of people these new social conditions would likely produce, and once the divisive, restrictive ideological institutions have been taken care of, there will be very little we can not achieve, and this could usher in a new age of peace and prosperity for all of life on Earth.
Next: Creativity and Technology
Previous: Belief: The Ancient Language
