https://youtubetranscript.com/?v=gqUgJEM_B6I
Here we go. So Into the Woods asks, Hi Jonathan, several times you’ve mentioned the great pitfall of the scientific worldview that it fails to include its model of the universe in the universe. I always feel like I’m on the verge of understanding what you mean by this, but I’m desperate for a slightly fuller explanation. Thanks for any you can offer and for all you do. So maybe a good way to understand this is to maybe think of just any kind of scientific theory. So a scientist will look at phenomena or will have an insight and then we’ll try to model the phenomena into a pattern that can be quantified, that can be described, and then that can be predicted and ultimately maybe even reproduced. All right, so that’s pretty much what science is. So they look at phenomena that you can quantify and they do that. Now the problem with that model is that the model of how the phenomena interact with each other isn’t part of the scientific theory. And so the problem is something like science is not scientific because in order for you to do scientific work, you have to have the model and then you apply it. But the model itself isn’t part of the thing you’re applying it to. It can’t be. Right, it has to somehow be above it. It has to be a pattern. That’s why in Matsuiro in his book he talks about how even in science there is this meeting of heaven and earth where there’s invisible patterns, invisible principles, and then there is potential and there’s manifestation or there’s quantifiable things, facts out there, multiplicity of facts, and the role of consciousness, the role of the person, the role of intelligence is to join them together. And so that is what, so in a way that’s why even in Matsuiro in his book he talks about how even science is ultimately symbolic because that’s what we’re trying to do. Now the reason why we insist on this so much is that one of the things that science has done, not science per se, but certain brand of scientists, what it has done is that it has tended to kind of denigrate the pattern part of the process and to see it, to see in our human interactions, to see the pattern part or the story part or all of these things as superstitious, as an overlay, as something that is on top of phenomena. What’s really important is the stuff we’re studying here. But this stuff, first of all, directly in the theory it is due to an invisible pattern, but then even on a bigger scale the fact that you’re even interested in the thing you’re studying in the first place is due to an even bigger pattern which is the fact of humanity itself, the fact of the possibility of human consciousness, the possibility of attention, of interest, all of these things which make us focus on certain things rather than others precedes the scientific endeavor. So that’s why I say things like science is embedded in religion or science is embedded in, if the name religion gets you annoyed, ultimately I think it’s true, but you could say something like science is embedded in the social, science is embedded in the capacity for intelligence or science is embedded in human existence. You could say it that way. Maybe it would be easier for people to understand it that way, that we study certain things for certain reasons and those reasons are not scientific. Hopefully that makes sense. I hope that’s explainable. you