TED Conversations

peter yeseab

This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »

Does science take away the 'magic' in life?

It seems in today's society we know everything from atoms to what caused life. But does this take away the 'magic', the passion, the wonder in life. for example, if you were to watch a sun set, we are told it is formed because of gravity's pull and the rotation of planets compared if we did not know the function we would simply stare in wonder. I am not saying science is bad but that it turns our view of our surroundings into a mechanical engineering system, a system relying on statistics and data only. making our world cold. religion has often been denied by science the belief in God since the enlightenment has made church attendance at a all time low. So should we go back to the stone age and stop innovation? of course not however, does science take away the 'magic' in life? if so, should we embrace it? what steps should we take to preserve the 'soul' of life?

0
Share:
progress indicator
  • thumb
    May 14 2013: Rather than science somehow diminishing our sense of wonder, if anything I believe it has served to enhance it immeasurably. Think of some of the greatest works in art, say the Mona Lisa, the Last Supper or David. Would it not enhance your appreciation for these masterpieces if you actually were there watching the artist meticulously apply the brushstrokes or apply the chisel to marble? I think most of us would give all we have for the privilege to have been there, to have actually seen it go from the artist's mind to a tangible object. So too, to see a field full of sunflowers is truly awe inspiring. But to understand the underlying mathematics of their design - the Fibonacci sequence, the golden ratio - only serves to enhance the experience. The birth of a child is wondrous. To know how the reproductive processes work at the genetic level, the staggering complexity and near flawless precision necessary to pass on genetic instructions only serves to enhance that wonder. No, rather than the false contradictions that have been contrived to polarize science and wonder, a look beneath the immediately obvious has enhanced our wonder exponentially.
  • May 14 2013: Nonsense!!! The fact that I know why the rainbow forms does not take away the joy of beholding one. The pleasure of laying down on the grass watching the stars is not diminished by the fact I know their nature. The "magic" of the moon lighting my way at night does not disappear just by knowing that light is reflected form the sun... I'm sorry but I don't agree with you, I think is quite the opposite.
  • thumb
    May 12 2013: Hi Peter.
    For me the knowledge that science brings only magnifies the 'magic'. The more we find out, the less we know.
    A hundred years ago a living cell was just a blob of yuk. Today it is a bustling miniature city; complex beyond our imaginings. Tomorrow? Goodness knows what we will find . In every age we have thought that science had the answer; partly it had, but things always seem to be more complex than we originally realise.
    To me the world is largely a mechanical system, but sophisticated beyond our dreams. Yes, I believe MAGIC is an appropriate word.

    :-)
  • thumb

    R H 20+

    • +3
    May 12 2013: I would say science adds to the magic. The magic u describe is enhanced by my knowledge of what it is I'm observing. The drama of the sunset for example, the living juxtaposition of moving colors, clouds, the serenity of the calming horizon, the magnificence of the sun itself is not reduced, but enhanced because of my knowing the gases, the prizmatic bending of light, and the fact that the sun is not 'setting' but the horizon's moving up. My wonder and awe is magnified because of the miracle of the components before me. And if this is what I 'know' so far, what is yet to come?
    • Comment deleted

      • May 12 2013: Isn't that the truth, Kate!
        We just got a book from the library about the human body - it is a kick to look at the pictures and talk about how our body is so perfectly designed to do everything we need! It is truly amazing.
      • thumb

        R H 20+

        • 0
        May 14 2013: "...unless we have a real illness..." There are those (I'm sure you're aware) that believe that the body has the ability to cure itself of all illness, that it is 'limited' because of our capacity to allow it to work properly, and that many (if not most) modern illness is a result of stress. Stress, it's believed, depletes the body's ability to ward off the invasion of disease. If we therefore reduce stress, we could be much healthier and happier. But of course, then we'd be 'happy' so we wouldn't need to buy a bunch of junk to try to appease our pain, and we'd be 'healthy' so wouldn't need so many health products and services - which I believe is the single largest profitable industry besides the military. Not very good for business! So plan on stress continuing and increasing. It helps us to be good citizens.
      • thumb

        R H 20+

        • +1
        May 14 2013: Yours is definitely more accurate. I used 'citizens' from a quick vision while writing that our citizenry is defined by our participation in society, and I live in a consumer society. Not the best descriptive word for the point. Thnx.
  • May 11 2013: We may know what causes a beautiful sunset but to see one is magic and very special. So is the birth of a baby of any animal, or bird soaring through the air. Science is wonderful but it doesn't take away the wonder and magic.
  • May 14 2013: I don't think so. I think it does the opposite. In attempting to understand the world, going beyond the superficial and in not being content with "Well, God did it" the world becomes more "magical" as you can find true wonderment in the complexity of life and everything in it. You've also got the excitement, enchantment and challenge of that which we do not know yet. Feynman compared how an artist perceived a flower's beauty, but it was only the look that they considered, a scientist, he argued, was exponentially captivated by everything else associated by the flower.

    "God was invented to explain mystery. God is always invented to explain those things that you do not understand. Now, when you finally discover how something works, you get some laws which you're taking away from God; you don't need him anymore. But you need him for the other mysteries. So therefore you leave him to create the universe because we haven't figured that out yet; you need him for understanding those things which you don't believe the laws will explain, such as consciousness, or why you only live to a certain length of time--life and death -- stuff like that. God is always associated with those things that you do not understand. Therefore I don't think that the laws can be considered to be like God because they have been figured out." Richard P. Feynman
    • thumb
      May 14 2013: David: While I agree with the conclusion that understanding the science of a thing does not diminish its wonder, I do disagree with the conclusion that understanding function precludes the existence of a designer. This is akin to saying that since we understand how a car operates mechanically that the existence of an engineer is no longer required. Feynman's analysis of this matter has a flaw in its premise, namely that religious belief (i.e. God) was invented to explain the currently inexplicable. That simply does not match up with the historical facts, namely that the leading inquisitors into the mysteries of the universe were those of deeply held religious convictions who sought to understand the mysteries of the universe as a means of peering into the thinking of the Creator. While religious organizations have acted shamefully in this respect, individual men and women of science and faith sought to understand such mysteries an an enhancement to, not a replacement of, their faith.
      • thumb
        May 20 2013: Rick,

        A car is designed a tree is not no are they the "same" thing. True many of the great scientist of the past held religious convictions, but if you take forr example Newton has religions feelings at the boundaries of his knowledge , but when he talks about motion there is no reference to God(s) or neither when he talks about the two body force (gravitation that he deduced, there is no mention of God(s). Why because he had his mind wrapped around the subject like a vise grip, even thou that in his time iit was a commonplace to render those subjects to the divine.When Newton faced the calculation of the whole solar system using the body equations his formulas crashed, they could not account for the stability for as long as it has in the Universe. The Sir Isaac Newton lacking the Math framework to account for the tugs of some planets invokes Intelligent design, a Creator. Then Huygens solves the problem in 1650 (no God(s) required), then Huygens himself calls on Intelligent Design to account for all the Biodiversity ( of course biology was a little behind in the 17th century).
        And the examples go on. The God(s) do hide at the perimeter of our ignorance , I agree with Feynman.
        • thumb
          May 20 2013: Isaac Newton actually wrote more about religion and religious subjects than he did about science. And, interestingly, he applied the same rigor to his religious thought as he did in the scientific realm. The result were works that were completely at odds with the religious systems of his day (and today for that matter). I would not describe this portion of his life and thought being at the "boundaries" in any way. Instead, Newton considered them the centerpiece of his life and in complete agreement with his scientific discoveries. However, Isaac Newton is not the heart of this reply.

          A few flaws stick out in your argument. First "many great scientists of the past held religious convictions" implies that this is not the present state. The reality is that many great scientists throughout history, including our modern day, hold deeply religious convictions. Of course individual belief, no matter the level of education, proves nothing at all. That takes me to the second flaw, namely "a car is designed and a tree is not". Well, despite efforts to close down this debate, the jury is still out on that one. And no, I am not implying some supernatural design for each species of tree. What I am saying is that the mechanisms of life at the genetic level cannot be glibly dismissed with time and randomness as the agents of creation. The laws of probability alone preclude this being a chance random event. It is clear that design was involved, and design that we are only starting to appreciate with recent developments in nanotechnology.

          Which takes me to the overarching theme of this discussion; do any of our advances in understanding diminish the wonder of it all? Well, when I consider closely the elegant beauty manifest in genetics, all of which is only recently coming to light, I am in awe of its accuracy, complexity and, dare I say it, wisdom. As I learn more, it is only enhancing my appreciation and continues to fill me with a sense of wonder.
      • thumb
        May 20 2013: I think you miss my point at hand between Newton and Huygens, basically is that a Creator fills the gaps of knowledge, but the creator gets pushed as mankind moves the boundary further.
        . And very true many a scientist do hold or held religious convictions, that is fine. And is also true that there is a large number of scientists that do not. I agree with you that individual belief no matter the educational level is not evidence of anything by itself.
        "mechanism of life at the genetic level cannot be glibly dismissed with time and randomness as the agents of creation. The laws of probability alone preclude this being a chance random event."( for some reason it reminded me of Borel's law)
        If we were to rewind the tape of our history to the beginning and then to have a fresh start , I dare say that the outcome would be different, (you use the concept of randomness, but random relative to what?), thus there is an element of chance involved, let's say the asteroid that hit the Yucatan peninsula & killed the dinosaurs may or may not hit us.Also natural selection would do its work whether mutations are directed or not. We need to distinguish between two senses of "random": the one kind that involves a total break in the causal chain, and in which the event is essentially chaotic; the other that requires only unpredictability such as the decay of unstable atoms, or Brownian motion, but which remains a caused event. These get confused all the time. There is nothing about changes in a genome or a gene pool that is random in the first sense, but much of the second sense.
        And I agree with you again as I watch the marvels of the universe I am humbled and fascinated.
        I know what makes a CD player work, but when you play Ray Charles , I don't think about audible acoustic waves, or frequencies , but rather the "magic" of a musical genius.
        • thumb
          May 20 2013: Carlos, I have reread both of our comments and I see your point, namely that Newton or Huygens invoked a creator in areas they did not understand using the models they created. I would however point out that if either of them could have ascertained the solution to their respective dilemmas, I doubt that either would have had their faith in a creator pushed out by the scientific explanation. Rather, what we see in the writing of Newton is that his discoveries were, in his view, insights into the mind of God not an explanation eliminating him, as was Feynman's original premise.

          Regarding randomness, I would wholeheartedly agree that randomness is an explanation for variance in a given outcome and, in that sense, would agree that a fresh start very well would have altered our present reality. And natural selection certainly provides a satisfactory explanation for changes in an existing system over time. However, as a causal agent of extremely complex systems, neither random events nor natural selection provide a satisfactory explanation.

          One final point, a very important one; you have great taste in music.
      • thumb
        May 20 2013: Rick operationally I agree with Feynman, and both Newton and Huygens were men of faith.
        Evolution provides a satisfactory explanation for Genetic changes that can be passed on to the next generation. Darwinian Evolution doesn't attempt to explain How life began, and Physics points to causes known to have taken us to this point and time.
        Evolution of complex systems is a ubiquitous phenomenon, we can't explain a complex thing as originating in a single step, but complex things do evolve. Like let's say software systems (remember DOS?) The assumption of complete requirements at any point in time is detrimental to the development of successful (i.e., useful and usable) software systems, successful software gets changed because it offers the possibility to evolve.

        In the other hand all the explanations in the world cannot kill the beauty of a Maui sunset in Kihei. Science is an essential tool for discovery, but for me it doesn't take away the passion for life, au contraire it enhances that je ne sais quoi life is made out of.

        Thanks Rick!!
  • thumb
    May 14 2013: What is "magic"? Card tricks; bunnies from top hats; a long chain of knotted scarves; sawing a pretty girl in half; etc.? I don't think the word "magic" is intended that way here. The word is being used here as a lazy substitute for things ethereal, or things transcendental, things not explainable by the Scientifc Method. If I am right then the answer is clearly "NO". Science cannot observe;describe; quantify; predict;or classify such things as happiness and sadness; love and hate; music appreciation; beauty; faith; etc. If I am wrong about the intended definition, then the answer is "Yes", science can absolutely demystify the disappearing assistant trick and the milk poured into the newspaper cone. Abbra Cadabra!
  • thumb
    May 11 2013: Read about the double slit experiment and tell me it takes the "magic" away.
  • May 18 2013: I think people need to see beyond science and God being mutually exclusive. That is a ridiculous attitude and it isn't scientifically supported. The fact is, the most basic scientific presumption points toward a creator. Something CANNOT come from nothing. Ask any scientist if there is such a thing as a random occurrence and they will tell you no. An example: a rock cannot just appear from nowhere. Like earth. Since there cannot be an infinite string of causes, basically there has to be a beginning SOMEWHERE, this means that we were created. The bein who created us cannot be held to the same laws as us, because the string theory would still apply. So conclusion: we were created by an infinite being, not subject to our laws. That would be God.

    As for the magic in life, I really think science can enhance it. We are walking miracles, and we can choose to be constantly amazed by the intricacies of this world if we wish. Just think o how complex our world is, how reliant each piece is on the other. Flowers need bees, bees need flowers. How did that relationship develop? Isn't it amazing? Albert Einstein propelled in many ways modern society. But he was once fluid and matter, tucked in a woman's belly. Miracles still happen. We just dont want to see them, because we think if we admit to the miraculous we will be judged or criticized. That is the true loss we have suffered.
    • thumb
      May 20 2013: Stephanie
      "out of nothing" I think first you have to define what nothing is and if it does exists in the natural world, You may want to read the work of L Krauss University of Arizona.
      What is the most basic scientific presumption that points toward a creator?

      Be well.
  • thumb
    May 13 2013: as i'm typing this, millions of transistors switch state in my CPU and RAM, so tiny you need strong microscope to see them. then when i press submit, in a matter of seconds, information travels to the US, across the ocean, modifies the transistors in a computer there, and then information travels from there to india, south africa, australia for others to see.

    no, it seems to me that science creates magic.
  • May 13 2013: Life is a mysterious thing. We live in awe of everything it has to offer, and we know only a fraction of what it has to offer. Some people would call this the "magic" of life, you never know whats coming and what is out there. With science, there are many frontiers being explored, and things that were once thought impossible, are now occuring in everyday life. Things like a flat screen TV and cell phones were once seen as impossible and radical, but now our life revolves around it. Once useless food now has every nutrient that is necassary for life. Scientists can now code the DNA of living things, and change the outcome of nature. So where now is the mystery? Where is the magic? Where is nature? Science and Scientists have done quite the job on eliminating these things from our everyday life. Where people wondered how the sun worked back in the 1800's we now know it is a ball of gas, nothing special, nothing magical. This "magic" made life interesting and it gave everyon something to think about, and now there is no food for thought, even the most uneducated Americans know the answer to what the most brilliant once pondered on. How does this leave the "magic" in life for the rest of us? Sure there are scientists that are just as curious in many new frontiers as there were back then, but the difference is, everyone wanted to know back then, no people are content with what science has told them, and their ambition to discover how the "magic" works is gone in almost all of the population.
  • May 12 2013: Science is historical in nature and one of the historical aspects is that it was once a minority viewpoint of the world, whether in ancient Greece or in the middle ages. So, as it became more popular it attempted to make itself definitive by rejecting aspects such as religion from its being. Gradually, after the time of Newton, who showed it was possible to predict the motion of the planets in a purely mechanical way without reference to God, those people drawn to science attempted to purge all non-mechanical aspects out of science. This process had the effect of killing the wonder and "magic" and beauty in the study of the natural world. This does mot mean that there is no magic, rather that in the view of the world of mechanical science it is not seen. What this means is that one manifestation of the world is the mechanical one whereas passion, art, the spirit are also a part of the world but ignored by the accepted scientific norm.
  • thumb
    May 12 2013: for me, the more you know the more magic
  • thumb
    May 25 2013: Science IS magic.
  • thumb
    May 14 2013: G'day Peter

    Good question, I would say no for I feel science is a tool for us to use in rediscovering ourselves again which is obviously what we are meant to do, to do the opposite is to stagnate which has no purpose therefore no intelligence would be needed so man would become redundant or unnecessary & what magic is in that??

    Love
    Mathew
  • May 13 2013: A lot of good arguments being said however, I think the term "magic" is being miss interpreted as science inventions. Yes science can make some amazing, magical stuff however, after a while there 'wonders' gets neglected. if you compare what I am stating to a child when given a new toy, some toys last longer than others but in the end we just throw them away. Look at the steam engine train and any other scientific invention which has been replaced with a new one. my point is that science can't bring everlasting satisfactory happiness to our lives and instead might possibly be reducing it instead.
    • May 13 2013: But for everything in life, it's not about the what, but about who and how. Science brings enormous amounts of "magic" to my life. Each and every day. The problem is not science, but people's attitudes. I can reduce anything the way you reduced science to "cold facts and whatever," painting could be "cold brushes and mixed colours." It's all in the individual. My point before was that it is not science, but the indifference created by the information overload, but this is not that simple, there's also a failure in the educational/societal system, that leaves people "soulless." The problem is not science, but pervading indifference.
  • May 13 2013: It might be choice which takes away magic just watched this great talk on TED:
    http://www.ted.com/playlists/91/everything_you_thought_was.html
  • May 13 2013: Interesting argument
  • May 13 2013: No. Not at all. The opposite is true instead. In the absence of science, humans invent magic and wonder and rituals and myths to explain, to provide answers to, the unknown or unknowable. Science makes it unnecessary to embrace ridiculous fantasies but in no way diminishes (or enhances) any aspect of reality.
    • May 13 2013: But is the "magic" a human reality, through science the world that surrounds us has its functions such as the houses function to shelter humans however is the "magic" a functioning process.
  • thumb
    May 12 2013: If magic equates to wonder then science is surely one of the greatest producers of magic.
    It allows you to say sentences, in the full knowledge that they're true, which sound completely absurd.
    It gives you whole new world perspectives.
    Every ounce of self importance is dismantled by one glance at a Hubble photo. To see the deep field is to realise that there are millions of worlds out there and introduces to you the vast unimaginable distances between the galaxies which culminates in the mind blowing exercise of trying to imagine the size of an ever increasing universe.
    To be able to say the time physically tops at the event horizon of a black hole is another example of an incredible thing we can only say because of modern science. That there are literally places in the universe where you can be stuck motionless in time.
    To be able to say that every atom in our bodies, except for hydrogen, was cooked in the furnaces of stars is incredible, everything on Earth is literally stardust.
    To know that millions of years ago Mars had water.
    Imagine being one of the first people to point a telescope at that giant bright dot in the sky, only to discover that it's actually a colossal gas giant such as Jupiter.
    To know that everything on Earth is related, that all life came from that one point in time.
    Then to top it all off. You've to consider that every single bit of knowledge we have, is because of ions transporting electric currents through our brains. Which then compute everything we receive via our sensory organs into data and memory.
    And I could list hundreds more things, like even curing diseases is incredible.
    Science only adds to the beauty of the universe.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cRmbwczTC6E
  • May 12 2013: Thank you for the reply and inputs to the conversation much appreciated.

    What is science? is it not cold hard facts which leave scientists lock away in there rooms contemplating. Is it not these same cold facts which turns our earth into an ice cube? I mean wonders that take our breath away such as the grand canyon even man made inventions like the iPhone(joke intended) may still be wonders with or without science however, taken that we know, we understand or we come across these wonders everyday, or we can search them up and locate them with out having to go to those places, like Entrophy said, somehow makes us ungrateful or take for granted these wonders. And is it not this which makes wonders in life a bit less 'magical'.
    • thumb
      May 12 2013: I see in your profile that you identify yourself as a student and lover of science, so why not share your real point of view on this? Most lovers of science could hardly see science as "cold hard facts that turn the Earth into an ice cube."
      • May 12 2013: Yes I am a lover of science and a student. But what i said is true, science are stone cold facts. it is what we make of it that makes the subject differ between different individuals. Yes I am a lover of science and a student. But my interests have no effect on what science is, and it is made up of theories, statistics and facts. But as days pass by in London i want to know different views and opinions on weather science takes away the 'magic' in life? Like you stated i am a lover of science and a student.

        kind regards.
    • May 12 2013: I just cannot understand your attitude toward this topic.

      Science has given us technology that provides us with magical results. How can you not appreciate the magic when using a microwave oven, watching TV, stopping at an automated stoplight, flying through the air at 800 kph, using an IPhone? I had to take a flight recently, the first time in many years. The modern airport may not have the longevity of the pyramids, but it is far more wondrous and functional.

      Taking wonders for granted is a choice. Choose to appreciate the wonder and magic.
      • May 12 2013: Yes you are very right in the case that science can create such 'magic' no doubt about that we have all seen the wonders it creates (disregarding the mass destruction it can cause).

        I think we need to understand first what is meant by 'magic'. Some of you who are religious as i am, who believes in a creator such as God, when confronted with such wonders we can say "oh this is Gods work" and with God or with a creator comes a set of rules. As science takes control over our society i fear what might come from putting so much faith into science as science has none of these rules. i think there is a bigger question to be answered here and that is should we put our faith into science?
        Its a bit of a radical change of question i know but i realized how dumb this question actually was so i looked deeper.
        • thumb
          May 12 2013: You are asking whether it's better to believe a set of rules set down during a very early and undeveloped part of human history which if broken result in eternal torture, VS, a modern, ever changing system which can be tested and falsified. When you say science has no rules it actually does. Whatever you state must have evidence, if you claim it to be true then it must show experimental results which match your predictions whilst also leaving a method for it to be falsified.
        • thumb
          May 15 2013: Define your terms Peter. Faith and Science are apples and oranges, oil and water. Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen (Hebrews 11:1 KJV). Science is systematized knowledge derived from observation, study, experimentation, and theorizing about the physical workings of the Universe. Your phrase "faith in science" denotes an impossibility because all belief is based on either Faith OR Science. For folks without Faith everything is based on Science.
  • May 12 2013: I would say that it is disinterest, boredom, and information overload that takes away the "magic" in life. Today it is possible to learn a lot at the push of a few buttons. That makes people perceive it as if there's no effort involved. No thinking necessary.

    We are far from knowing everything, but sure science has found explanations to make of the deepest mysteries of nature. As Peter Law said below, science still manages to show that we know very little, and, often, we discover many more mysteries to answer. That makes it even more interesting, but sure the newer generations take so much for granted, there's such an overload of information, that it looks as if we know everything there's to know. But that's a false perception. I try and teach my students to put themselves in the shoes of those who first discovered one thing or another. It's hard. They truly feel like there's no mysteries anywhere. But we have to try. Our young are losing their "souls" to information overload.
  • thumb
    May 12 2013: Nice to meet you Peter Yeseab,
    An interesting question. Hopefully I shall provide a satisfactory answer!
    Well I find (for me) an explanation doesn't diminish the beauty of something at all.
    I mean if you explained to me how "love" occurs, would that make "love" less magical and special?
    (To quote Justin L. Barret :
    "Having a scientific explanation for mental phenomena does not mean we should stop believing in them. Suppose science produces a convincing account for why I think my wife loves me — should I then stop believing that she does?”)
    For me?
    No!
    Just because you have a scientific explanation for something, I don't think it reduces it "magic" at all.
    Science helps me enter a state of "flow", as I wonder at the secrets of the universe.
    I'v always like the quote by J. B. S. Haldane :
    "I have no doubt that in reality the future will be vastly more surprising than anything I can imagine. Now my own suspicion is that the Universe is not only queerer than we suppose, but queerer than we can suppose."
    Science helps us find out what that "reality" is! :-)
    Kind regards,
    Bernard.
  • thumb
    May 12 2013: very interesting question Peter
  • May 12 2013: Yes science could add to the magic, but is it not the curiosity that makes the wonder or 'magic' and that curiosity is taken away by our knowledge on the subject. I am not implying science makes our current natural wonders completely boring however, it makes it less of a wonder. Using the example of a sunset, type that into Google (one of the worlds most used search engine) for a definition and what do you get? Do you get that thrill or that 'magic'? No, simply facts and data. Obviously this is different to seeing the sunset in real life but if you were then confronted with a sunset after studying the process' which takes place your whole experience changes.
  • May 11 2013: Through all sorts of media, products and established ideas we are constantly seeing new innovations in our society. science has taken over court cases and even moral issues, it seems to me that science has become the new truth and thats how we are being told to think in the same pattern.

    In addition maybe it is not only science that prevents this 'magic' but in total logical thinking, what should we pay attention to more, our spiritual side which allows us to feel with out knowing or the controlling calculative side, a side not always considered the best?
    • May 12 2013: Why one or the other? I use both my left hand and my right hand.
      • thumb
        May 12 2013: I agree Barry....I use ALL available information. Nothing can take away the magic of my life exploration and experience. There is ALWAYS more to explore and learn....or not.....depending on one's perception:>)
  • May 11 2013: Yes however, if we look at the day to day scientists the 'common man' we see that there natural state of wonder is being altered by making life abit dull because they know or they are told what is and what is not. If you use the example of a regular mobile, we use mobiles, we know what a mobile is, we pass by and use that mobile almost everyday in our life's, now if you give that mobile to a 18th century 'common man' that man one could say would worship such genius with wonder, with feelings like 'magic'.

    Yes people see different patterns and that doesn't make it less magical but i believe we are being told to view everything in the same pattern. And that thing, or that god that tells us to view everything in the same pattern is science.
    • thumb
      May 11 2013: I don't know why or how you are being told to view everything in the same pattern.