Cross-Referencing is not a Religious Concept

Science mythologies blend into science like a well-dressed
person walking around the streets of Manhattan. They actually don’t belong there—there is no
room for myths in the world of science—but you’d be hard pressed to identify
the one that doesn’t belong, the myth sitting so comfortably in a world of
truth and verifiabililty, the moving mannequin in the world of empirical
humans. The last person you’d expect to
find the myths are the scientists themselves, who not only believe the myths
are true, but have in implied task of passing the myths along. The myths aren’t even scientific
controversies, such as the current debate about global warming. They blend in much better than that.

So much better that if someone gave you an assignment to
write a research paper, more likely than not you would come back with two pages
of mythology properly footnoted as unquestioned fact. The first time I came across one such myth
was when reading Michel Foucault’s The
Birth of the Clinic, about the genesis of modern medicine. Here’s the myth: that before modern medicine
no one dissected bodies for religious reasons.
Do your own survey. Go to a
Science and Technical
College just to make
doubly sure—and ask around, why systematic dissection of bodies didn’t occur
before the 18th century. More
than likely, they’ll give you the myth—the church, religious oppression, that
song and dance. Implied, of course, is
that before science people were just pretty damn stupid, ruled by myths and all
things untrue.

The real reason for the lack of dissection was that the
disease was considered to be part of the person, their life force or soul, and
that the departure of such energy also signaled the departure of the
disease. So, there really wasn’t much
point to dissection. Of course you will
see what the disease did to the body, but you won’t see the disease
itself. It’s actually a reasonable,
logical, and intelligent rationale. And
then, for no real scientific reason, the assumption simply changed, that the
ravages of the disease actually was the disease itself. And at this point dissection became the
logical, reasonable, and intelligent thing to do. This coincided with Napoleon’s plans to
conquer Europe, and like it or not, there was
no shortage of bodies laid open for all to see.
There were so many wounded and sick that hospitals formed—and this is
the genesis of modern medicine.

For the physician or medical researcher, it doesn’t matter
in the least how their way of seeing things or doing things came into being—and
so if they know the reality or believe and propagate the myth, it just doesn’t
matter.

But there are myths that do matter, and many scientists hold
these myths. And like all people, they
hold to them quite tightly, no matter how much evidence to the contrary hits
them in the face like a cream pie. One
such myth is that cross-referencing doesn’t or shouldn’t occur. Physicists should talk about and study
physics, and this right is reserved only for physicists, and the findings and
knowledge should stay within the field of physics. The knowledge should be held in like an
electric fence holds in the family dog.
Of course science doesn’t work that way at all—historically that view of
science has never been the reality.
James Burke, one of the foremost historians of science, showed that
ideas get from person to person, scientist to scientist, innovator to innovator
the way bees take pollen from flower to flower.
In terms of research and learning, science is not at all
monogamous—ideas and inventions get around and frequently end up being used in
ways not even close to the original intent.

And this happens because some scientists simply want their
ideas spread around. The other day a
physicist commented, lamented actually, because their wasn’t much substance to
the comment, that people are using the findings of physics in ways this
physicist doesn’t approve. Apparently,
I’m one of those misusers. But I didn’t
break into any buildings or laboratories to steal ideas. The folks behind all of this misuse are other
physicists who write books for lay people, to tell of this wonderful new world
they are discovering—or rather to happily state that they are for the first
time discovering the natural world. Newton’s Universe is just
fine for inventing technology, but it’s not how the world moves, it’s now how
things change—in fact, it bears no relation to reality at all. But damn you sure can invent some great tools
using it. Brian Greene is one of the
most recent in a long line of physicists willing to leak their super duper top
secret knowledge to lay folk. Richard
Feynman, Gary Zukav, Steven Hawking, Paul Davies, Leon Lederman—there are Nobel
Prize winners in this list, have all leaked the secrets. And there’s plenty more. They do this so that their universe, their sense
of cause and effect, of how things move and change, they do this so that their
universe becomes our universe—a different universe than our common sense tells
us, our common sense that is Newton’s
Universe. They would like us to join
the 20th century at least, even though we are starting the 21st.

If we overlay this new template on top of the things we
know, then those things change. Those
things change dramatically. The guardian
physicists would prefer this not occur, it seems like. Okay, maybe the new ideas can creep into
chemistry or mathematics—but damn it, keep them out of the philosophy
department or the English department.
Definitely keep them out of the psychology department and goddam it,
make certain they don’t creep into the world of religion.

But of course, ideas and knowledge have little respect for
barbed wire, and they get into those places they shouldn’t go. The physicist so upset with these events even
said that he assigns a paper, that his students should find one of the books where
these ideas shouldn’t be—and discredit the book. He didn’t say read the book, form your own
opinion. That’s not an option. Find the book and discredit it. And he didn’t even see the irony in that,
assigning their conclusion before they even gathered any data.

And this is why I see no need for a conflict between
religion and science, why I think that each field is necessary to the
understanding of the other. Because it's the natural ebb and flow of ideas, that if you cross-reference physics and religion you get something you didn't expect, it's quite wonderful, and I wouldn't dare spoil the ending--even though you think you've already read the story.