Thought For the Day
- Donald R. McClarey
Donald R. McClarey
Cradle Catholic. Active in the pro-life movement since 1973. Father of three, one in Heaven, and happily married for 43 years. Small town lawyer and amateur historian. Former president of the board of directors of the local crisis pregnancy center for a decade.
This post is correct. Often I teach classrooms full of science worshippers who need to become nuclear professionals. But when it comes to understanding basic principles of physics, heat transfer and fluid flow (e.g., Bernoulli’s Principle, Boyle’s Gas Law, etc.), they surprisingly haven’t a clue on how to apply them to measuring temperature, pressure, level and flow in a fluid system. All that college education – worthless and useless. Yet they can rattle off this morning’s latest climate alarmist nonsense in the news media or on social media. Oh do I want to ask the question, “If you don’t know a thing about heat transfer and fluid flow, then what makes you think you can know anything about weather patterns and climate change, which are heat transfer and fluid flow on a macro scale?” But the question would likely get me reprimanded if not fired. 🙁
The scientific method is a wonderful tool, but it cannot be applied to certain questions— such as ‘what is beauty?’, ‘what is human consciousness?’, ‘why are we here?’, etc.
It’s not that science is a bad thing, it’s just that there is a limit to the questions it’s able to address. Unfortunately for those folks who place all of their hopes in science, the questions it cannot answer are some of the most important of all.
It can answer some of those things in a materialist sense (e.g., beauty can be measured with the golden ratio, symmetry, proportionality). Architecture does it all the time. So does music. Even applies to human beauty standards within a variation of tastes (features such as symmetry, proportionality, lack of blemishes, etc.). What it can’t do is determine moral imperatives although it can provide information to make those moral determinations (e.g., if you drop X bomb here, it will wipe out Y noncombatants). The problem with science is applying it outside its role, and more importantly, given credence to scientists on issues outside their purview. You don’t take political advice from Hollywood celebrities; you shouldn’t take it from science celebrities either.
Science, like everything, has been co-opted by those who have money and use that money as influence in reaching a pre-conceived idea, one that usually will give them even more money. A perfect example is Bill Gates who has used his money to direct world governments to do his bidding, particularly in vaccines.