The Futility of Science

Western society holds ‘science’ in high esteem. That said, even Eastern society holds it in high esteem. So do individual human beings, and so do i. But science is a futile art, it is a means to an end and not an end in itself; but die hard ‘belief’ in it has driven the human race to the edge of destitution.

What is science? Simply put, it is the cumulation of all human knowledge; amassed for centuries from the beginnings of current civilisation. All logically provable facts and figures fall into this realm of certainty; and certainty is something that we humans cannot seem to do without. But certainty, while being commendable, has taken the guise of perpetuity, and that is not at all good.

‘Believers’ of science not only see it as the come all, but also the be all of existence. This in itself is a self defeating philosophy; for scientific theory is constantly changing and being renewed, what science does not know today, it may come to know tomorrow; science itself knows that it is merely a neophyte in the vast unknown, but its blind believers unfortunately, usually leave their sense behind when engaging in so called ‘logical reasoning’; which, to them, is simply a process of deducing what is proved by mainstream sciences, and what is not.

They discard what cannot be proved and embrace only what is proved beyond a doubt. their philosophy is this; if it is not scientifically proven, it doesn’t exist.

Is this a bad thing? Well of course it is! It is only the very belief in the unknown and the unprovable that drives Science forward in the first place! If all scientists thought like laymen, scientific institutions the world over would simply shut down. Why? because if anything that science hasn’t proven does not exist, then that means science can never prove anything else, because nothing else exists to be proven. So why continue with science at all?


But this mass illusion is not the fault of science. Actually, ‘science’ is not futile at all. It facilitates the advancement of the species so i’ll drink (a non-alcoholic beverage) to that. No. In my opinion it is the people, the mainstream public; their fear of the unknown and the subsequent effects of ‘groupthink‘ that leads to this breakdown of critical thought.

Even so called ‘intellectual circles’ show extreme aversion to sprouting what they consider to be mystic, insane, unprovable mumbo jumbo out loud. So instead of original thought, their members prefer to recycle only what their gurus of science have proven to be true beyond a doubt; they build their lives on the seemingly solid foundations of established truth. But what they choose to ignore is the soil that these foundations rest on; soil that is also known as the great unknown.

Some examples; God, the meaning of life, the fate of the human after death, the nature of the life force; our very being, the very workings of our minds and brains, the construction of the universe in its totality, morality etc. The list of scientifically unproved and unknown things go on and on. ‘Respectable society’ abhors such heretic; because respectable society doesn’t have answers to questions like that. It has carved itself a system that thrives on ignoring the greater unknown, it is a system that only grows with the growth of science.

God is disruptive. Death is disruptive. Admitting the existence of a human soul is disruptive. ‘Faith’ is disruptive. Religion is criminal. Belief is unnecessary where facts exist. And where facts exist, non-facts become fabrications and lies. And the system is built on lies. Lies full of facts.

That is not to say however, that most people do not believe in at least some aspects of the unknown; most do, and on a conscious level too. But the nature of the world is such that everyday life has forced these thoughts into the edge of the subconscious, and the public lives in a state of doublethink; constantly holding two contradictory beliefs in mind simultaneously, while accepting both of them.


London Mystic - Leonard - Art

London Mystic - Leonard - Art

  1. Perez Christina said:


  2. Jerry said:

    Respectable society doesn’t really abhor questions such as those you mentioned above…

    • Whacko said:

      well strongly averse then.

      • Jerry said:

        Nah, that’s the religious fanatics. They condemn thought in that direction because they consider it blasphemy to bring science into such things. But certainly not “most” people, yes?

    • Whacko said:

      no what i meant is non-‘scientific’ and non-‘factual’ conversation is usually discouraged. As in society has a tendency towards the materialistic and even sometimes the hedonistic.

      • Jerry said:

        Ah, the dependence upon science and the belief that it is well, god.


  3. Perez Christina said:

    I didn’t ask anything

    • Whacko said:

      no i think he meant the questions raised in the post 😀

  4. Brilliant post, I remember quite a bit of this from that conversation we had that day.
    A lot of good points here, waiting too see what the opposing views might be like.

  5. Foxhound said:

    Science simply is…

    It’s a process of delving and understanding the unknown by hypothesis, testing and analysis. That’s it. It’s called Scientific Method.

    The rest is lore made up by people, especially those who claim its a ‘belief’. What you can do is believe in the findings of science. But any good unbiased scientific research always has a section on limitations, drawbacks of testing methods and assumptions that were made to come to conclusions.

    The Philosopher Hume says that just because a stone is dropped and every time we drop it, it falls to the floor it does not necessarily mean it will always do so.

  6. Ah, so this is why you told me to watch out for this post 😀

    With regards to the definition of science, I agree with Foxhound. Science is the study of phenomena through standardised analysis of hypotheses. I call the analytical methods ‘standardised’ because they’ve been fine-tuned over centuries of research. However, they will continue to be modified and improved over the years to come – science is a work in progress.

    Religion, on the other hand, is not…and therein lies the problem. I think the ‘believers of science’ that you refer to are those who have become disillusioned with organised religion (for whatever reason) and have inadvertently adopted science as their ‘religion’. I disagree with their argument that “if it is not scientifically proven, it doesn’t exist” – to me, it just means that science isn’t advanced enough yet to explain it.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: