Trust Me, I'm a Scientist

Science and the telly is a very heady mixture. Programmes about, or referring to, science are surprisingly popular. The general viewing public has about as much understanding of the scientific method as a lawyer has about the truth. Science-related programmes are commissioned and produced by people who aren't scientists. They're put together by the flakiest folk of all; television producers.

A television producer is mostly concerned with viewing statistics and maximum audiences. When it comes to science they think that it has to be displayed in a way that is relevant to the 'average viewer'. The average viewer is a mythical figure whose attention span and intellectual capacity is assumed to be roughly equivalent to that of a two-year-old rabbit.

Scientists (in broadcasting applications) are usually 'Professors' of something, or other, who are on the payroll of a university that is desperate for cash. These scientists have to justify their existence to the institutions that employ them by attracting funding from either commercial companies or politicians.

On a typical programme about astronomical matters, such as 'Gamma-Ray Bursts', or the 'Death of Our Sun', we are always treated to the spectacle of a 'Scientist' talking about the implications for 'Us' (meaning the survival of mankind). When we consider gamma-ray bursts, we are told that they all occur over ten billion light years away. Non have been detected in our galaxy, probably because they stopped occurring about ten billion years ago. We are not going to be wiped out by a gamma-ray burst, but we are told by a Professor (who knows better), that such an event (if close enough) would wipe us out. When we consider the death of the sun, we are told that this will happen in about 4.5 billion years' time, and we might survive by 'moving to Mars'. Mankind has been on this planet for (at most) half a million years. Life on this planet is about 3 billion years old. We know that evolution shows that our species will probably not be around (or, at least, recognisable as 'Us') in less then another half a million years. In fact, the way we are going, our survival beyond the next few hundred years is highly doubtful. Talk about us 'escaping to Mars' in billions of years' time is just rubbish. The scientists are talking utter bollocks, They must know that they're talking utter bollocks, but they do it anyway. Could that be because there's a pay-check involved?

We also often hear scientists saying that they 'believe' this or that theory. A scientist should never 'believe' anything. It is their role to always question any hypothesis. The scientific method is to suggest an 'Hypothesis' (which is only ever a 'best guess') and then to test and explore that hypothesis in an attempt to prove or disprove that guess. No proper scientist should ever assume an outcome of such enquiry, or be committed to one outcome over another. The facts are the facts and that's all a scientist should be interested in. In the field of physics, so many 'beliefs' have been exploded in the last few decades, and doubtless that process will continue. The history of science shows, time and time again, how 'established' science has rejected and vilified those who challenge that establishment. Time and time again, the 'established view' has been overthrown, only after an ugly and un-edifying public battle in which egos and 'reputations' made sure that the truth always took a back-seat to individual belief and ambition.

Scientists are like any other group of people, but they lay claim to something others groups do not lay claim to: Scientific Objectivity. Rarely do we see this in public practice.

Trust the scientists?

Why Did The Good Samaritan Cross The Road?

About a year ago, feeling the need to re-charge my batteries, I spent a few very enjoyable days at a Buddhist centre on the other side of the county. It must have been well over thirty years since I had been in an 'Ashram' or monastic institution. Buddhism is an offshoot of Hinduism, just as Christianity and Islam are offshoots of Judaism. My monastic background was in the Kashmiri Shavite tradition of Hinduism, but the way the whole place was set up and run, and the disciplines observed, were instantly familiar. Here was a group of bright people from a wide variety of backgrounds, covering a wide age-range and of both genders. They were all, in a determined and disciplined way, in pursuit of spiritual fulfilment and enlightenment.

I never was one to do well in, or around, institutions of any type. So my visit was never going to be more than a few days in a conducive environment, to do some meditation and to connect with the spiritual pursuits of others. I took the opportunity to read some of the literature on offer. There was the usual explanation of the nature of the self, and the usual claim that this particular Buddhist path is the only path that will get you to your spiritual goal. One thing I learned a long time ago is that nobody has a monopoly in this arena.

It was also instructive to see that this community (with its rather privileged lifestyle), in a fantastic huge property in wonderful surroundings, was seeking to justify it's monastic isolation. The argument was that by leaving society and concentrating on achieving their own enlightenment, they were enriching the spiritual capital of the world and, thereby, helping the rest of mankind. That seemed to me to be a bit of a stretch and to display a naive fear of appearing to be selfish.

All spiritual pursuits are, by their very nature, selfish. We follow these paths and practices to make sense of our own lives and to find internal peace for ourselves. There is no need to pretend that we do this for the benefit of others, even though others may end up benefiting from our efforts. We seek spiritual peace out of self-interest.

There are two kinds of self interest. Greed and disregard for others characterise one kind. Care and loving for others (because it aids our own well being) characterise the other. This second kind of self interest is Enlightened Self Interest.

The Good Samaritan crossed the road because, if he had passed by on the other side, he would have felt terrible. He crossed the road because it made him feel better and contributed to his happiness by helping his fellow man.

Keeping So'ham Simple

I've been getting a bit of feedback from people saying they're 'struggling' with meditation. I'm a bit surprised, but then perhaps, I shouldn't be. I do think that many folk are simply expecting too much, too soon, of what essentially is a very simple mental exercise.

Learning how to ride a bike is extremely difficult at first. Once you've learned, it takes no obvious skill, you just let your body get on with it. Meditation is a bit like that. The more you do it, the easier it gets. Except that learning to ride a bike is much harder than learning to meditate.

There are so many traditions and disciplines that employ meditation and promote no end of varied and contradictory methods and practices. Most of them claiming to be the only true path to enlightenment. Meditation gets built up into this massive spiritual 'big deal' that only accomplished Yogis and Buddhist Monks can get to grips with.

The point about 'So'ham' or 'breathing' meditation, (see: Friday 18th December 2009 'Meditation De-Mystified') is that it doesn't need any special time, place, discipline or method to be of use. You can sit down in a special place set aside for meditation, at a set time, in a very disciplined way, and if that's your bag, you'll get a lot of benefit from it. But all of that is so unnecessary.

Listening to you breath can be done in any situation, place or time. I find that it works really well when I'm driving or doing some repetitive task. I've often done it in a bored moment at a party, when observing the goings on from the edges of things, or even in a meeting when things have got tedious. So'ham simply helps to flip from being fully immersed in the goings on around you, to being just one step detached from things, going from being an actor in the play to being a member of the audience. There is nothing more to it than that.

It's especially handy when someone, or some situation, is doing it's very best to piss you off.

I recommend starting by not making a big, disciplinary epic of the whole thing. Just try a bit of 'So'ham' when you're driving, travelling on the bus, waiting in the queue at the bank...

Where observation leads sometimes may be tedious and obvious, sometimes full of insight and, very occasionally, deeply spiritual. There is no point approaching the act of observation with expectations- the two aren't compatible - what you observe is what it is and no more.

Why do it at all?

That only becomes obvious when you notice that you simply feel better for doing it.