The Soulless Scientific Method
It seems these days we will believe nothing unless the presentation is preceded by the words “scientists discover” or “research shows” or some other claim that science is required to approve of the reality of every phenomenon.
I recently ran across an article that claimed, “therapy conducted through ZOOM is more effective in many ways than therapy conducted in person”—study shows.
Sorry, I just don’t buy it. But that isn’t really the point here. Why do I need “science” to tell me if something like psychotherapy works or not when it really is up to me how it works (or doesn’t work)? Of course I am sure, or hope, the “study” included a subjective analysis by interviewing actual patients. But then why does it need the qualification? Why does everything have to be “proven” either through the scientific method or through some sort of analysis regarding how other people feel about it. That, to me, is like saying, “study shows apples taste better than pears, ten people out of twelve say so.” I am not bucking science. There are plenty of things science has “proven” to be the way to evaluate functionality, or even to evaluate efficiency or whether or not something has the right to be called “matter.” But matter isn’t the only thing that is real, yeah, believe it or not.
Keep reading with a 7-day free trial
Subscribe to Shrew Views to keep reading this post and get 7 days of free access to the full post archives.