Main menu

Intuition and science are generally seen as essentially separate phenomena without any point of contact. These are two schools that often end up in direct confrontation with each other. Is this a sane expression? I will briefly explain how I see this unnatural problem.


The prevailing norm

In the West in particular, science is the supreme guide for everything that is considered true, legitimate and valuable. But the Universe cannot, by definition, be made up solely of concrete and unambiguous concepts. The presence of the tangible makes the indefinable reveal itself. That science constitutes the norm for our society is probably connected with the patriarchal rule. The male position has long "sat in the walls", but now the picture is changing. The development is moving slowly but tirelessly towards a truly equal society where both sexes complement each other instead of "secretly" waging war against each other. A new togetherness awaits us.

The conscious field

People who work with intuitive questions are often told: "you are not scientific", which in plain language means that they are considered "non-serious". Of course, intuitive knowledge is at least as serious as science, but it does not use the traditional conceptual system. We are facing a paradox here; intuition and science must be able to interact but at the same time they can only use their respective languages. In other words, it is pointless to try to make scientific measurements of the intuitive area. Intuition is a conscious field that escapes all attempts at analysis. The results that are still given become meaningless or report results that are consistent with chance.

In summary, you can say; "intuitive information should be questioned but can never be measured, weighed or otherwise tested using scientific methods". It is equally unsuccessful to allow intuition to invade the field of science. Why create an intuitive image of something that is theoretically and practically possible to test through an experiment? According to that starting point, science is the foundation, when all concrete research is exhausted, intuition comes in. This is not to say that intuition has to wait until science is ready (which it never will be). Intuition and science must complement each other and give each other impulses, then we get close to the truth.

A spiritual reality

There is a spiritual dimension that is fully real but not measurable (by physical measurements). This existence consists of particles and energies that science has not yet discovered (and may never discover). The way to still make the spiritual dimension visible must go through intuition. It is already the case in particle physics that concrete experiments have played their role. The objects being observed are now so small that incoming radiating particles (electrons, photons) inevitably affect the measurement result. The last barrier to fully understanding the properties and laws of matter therefore needs to be done theoretically (that's where intuition comes in).

Scientists can fire their particle accelerators until the tubes become white-hot, astronomers can build telescopes larger than our solar system. The path to the ultimate understanding of the Cosmos must ultimately involve intuitive approaches. Science has painted itself into a corner and the prestige of research rules. Even if an idea is never so crazy, you feel the need to stick to it out of principle (science can't be wrong). I think unsought of the totally nonsensical idea of ​​the Big Bang, which has long stuck around tooth and nail. This is despite several reports suggesting that the redshift of stars may have other causes than that they are actually moving away.

The expert society

A very tangible danger with the scientific system is that it rewards the establishment of "experts" in certain fields. But an expert who knows a lot about a particular phenomenon must reasonably be less knowledgeable, perhaps downright ignorant, in other areas. If this person thus does not have the overall picture clear to him, can he rightly claim to be an expert? We are faced with a paradox: What joy do we have in "specialist idiots" who know everything about their own niche but who cannot convey the knowledge, because they are unable to relate to society at large?

My view is that the expert community is an expression of a strong imbalance in the intuitive and scientific scales. If intuition regains its rightful position, the (fear) reign of the experts will finally end. When people know a little about most things (and a lot about nothing), society becomes balanced and harmonious. Experts can certainly fulfill a function, but the prerequisite is that they combine their knowledge with a considerable portion of humility. The universe is a large and highly advanced system. Who can claim to fully understand this essence?


 

◄ Go back