Freedom to Choose

With more than seven billion humans on this planet, living on seven continents as citizens of hundreds of independent nations, and subscribing to thousands of philosophies it is difficult to see how we can ever get all humans to live the way that every other species on the planet lives; committed to the welfare of the species rather than to the welfare of their parochial group. Yet, this is absolutely necessary for the future well-being of our species. Crisis after crisis highlights that fact.

We need to get everyone on the same page so that the money now being wasted on military budgets and standing armies can be redirected to development projects. The first step to getting us all on the same page is to teach universally that our much vaunted freedom of choice is not freedom to choose our behavior, which is the way we exercise it, but the freedom to choose which group we belong to, which is the way nature enforces it.

This method is superior to other attempts at defusing the tension among humans in that it does not require anyone to make any significant changes in their philosophy, nor does it tell them what to do. There is no call for change nor a call for compromise, and nothing stands in the way of peace than our resistance to change or compromise. It accomplishes our goal, and we all desire a world without the threat of war, by utilizing the power of nature that produced a thriving ecosystem into which humans finally emerged. In other words it produces the results nature would have had without human interference. In nature, each entity performs in a certain way because of the group to which it belongs. It is not the behavior of entities that determines the nature of a species but the species that determines how members of that species behaves.

Can we really trust science?

Most people are unaware of the distinction between science and the scientific method. I have done a cursory review of the scientific literature and, even though this review was not exhaustive, it does not appear that the literature places any emphasis on the fact that whereas science is the tool used by humans to develop models of reality the scientific method, especially within the context of peer review, is the tool used by scientists to test and compare those models. For this reason, most people use science and the scientific method as synonymous terms. They speak of science when the context shows that they mean the scientific method and they speak of the scientific method when they mean science.

This confusion can probably be attributed to the fact that science and the scientific method have been key players in some of the most intense cultural wars in which humans have engaged over the years, being presented as being antagonistic to religion, especially in discussions pertaining to the origins of the species. This state of war that exists between religion and science has caused the scientific community to pay scant attention to the role that science plays in human progress and development. Consequently, the scientific literature focuses only on the results of applying the scientific method to test different scientific models in various contexts. The fact that science itself is a model of a process that has been ongoing in nature from the very beginning remains unaddressed. Science is the human model of how nature deals with diversity and selects from a variety of options. It deserves the same level of scrutiny that we have applied to our scientific models of how various areas of nature functions.

We use the scientific method to compare and choose among conflicting scientific models that represent how we think nature functions. But this process depends on an assumption that is not true. Science assumes that humans, as observers, are not a part of nature’s developmental processes. The remarkable success that we have achieved with the scientific method and peer review has caused us to further assume that the meta-model within which we have applied the scientific model is either without error or has been implemented without error. As with all other assumptions we make, these assumptions need to be tested and I will attempt to do so here using data that is already available and is generally accepted as being true. If we had tested these assumptions we would already have found the answer to the most pressing problems humans face because we would have identified importance of the connection between science and human development.

As can be inferred from the last sentence, it is not that we do not understand the connection between science and human development. The evidence is overwhelming. What we have overlooked is the fact that science does not only contribute to our development but it is a reflection of how well we have developed as a species. It serves as both thermometer and thermostat.