Pearce, Hughes and Walsh

I found some of Pearce's discussion about science fairly interesting. Indeed, science does incorporate an element of subjectivity into its approach. The indoctrination of each subdivision of science greatly influences the scientist's mind and contributes not only to biases in their approach, but fragments any information ascertained and its ensuing application. A Eureka! moment becomes more and more unlikely in the event this avenue of thought is taken. A social psychological term comes to mind while contemplating this sort of issue, confirmation bias. It is the tendency for one to seek, interpret, and create information that verifies existing beliefs. Anyhow, a reasonable person could comfortably concede the fact that true 'objectivity' is dubious at best. But are certain pieces of information fairly concrete? Do we really know the structure of an animal cell, the components of an element, the process of evolution or an accurate estimate of the carbon-dated years in which life cycles took place on Earth? If it's primarily our knowledge of quantum physics and astronomy that is under discussion (and it is not), then Pearce's argument is well taken. However, those particular fields of study entail far more complex, deep-rooted questions than the disciplines of biology, chemistry, geology, etc. All scientific methodology entails an examination of evidence, formulation of hypotheses, conduction of experiments and eventually, a conclusion (and then, of course, repetition). Physicists and astronomers concerned with cosmological questions are rather limited in their use evidence, resources, instrumentation, location, etc. which are part and parcel to acquiring scientific information about our universe according to the methodology previously mentioned. Cosmological questions, that is, questions concerned with the origin, structure, space-time relationship, and the nature of our universe are some of the most difficult questions ever posed to the human brain. The answers to these sort of questions oftentimes exemplify our humble location in the universe. Cracks in this cosmic egg will always continue to form, break, and reform.

At any rate, Pearce claims that "Hardness of heart, the refusal to listen sympathetically and open-mindedly, with its corollary, unbelief, is the stumbling block which no theoretical system can overcome (pg.95)." So, stubborn-mindedness coupled with indoctrinated thought processes (among other factors) obscure our thought progression, impede our judgement, and plateau are understanding. I would agree wholeheartedly, and proceed to acknowledge that holistic worldviews should begin to accompany any and all scientific knowledge ascertained from this advanced point in humanity onward. At times Pearce's argument seems to have larger implications which not only urge individual persons to reconsider their 'finite' worldview, but calls for a collective dialogue which may be well beyond realistic proportions. I do not foresee nations, ethnicities, and cultures throughout the world throwing off their worldviews and ideologies to uniformly take up Pearce's method of cracking the cosmic egg. Lastly, it would seem that extraordinary individuals throughout history are responsible for such dramatic ideological paradigm shifts (i.e. Eurkea! instances) which cause cracks in the 'cosmic egg', not the average Joe six-pack. In my opinion, that is precisely how these sort of occurences will happen for centuries to come.

I found the Pearce reading more intriguing than the Hughes and Walsh reading, so I'll keep my comments on the latter authors very brief. The Hughes reading was somewhat interesting, but speculation into the power of dreams, their meaning, and any subsequent theories about the nature of our unconscious minds results in gibberish. This sort of discussion is entirely subjective, defined in the most literal, denotative description of the word. As for Walsh...I do not particuarly enjoy this book. In my opinion, shamanism is not an interesting topic, especially as it pertains to learning any valuable information.