Conflict between storyteller and science telling.

 

During one of this morning’s walks with my Maddy dog–musing on my current project, Thomas Nagel’s iconic essay, “What is it like to be a bat?”–I had a defining insight regarding the conflict I feel–as a life long science enthusiast and follower–with theology and philosophy.

Even though they also interest me, however in the same way art and music impress me, not in any self-defining manner the way serious science does.

Press enter or click to view image in full si

On the one side we have,

the storyteller, confident in the stories created from within one’s mind. Using the outside world as a prop upon which to tell a provocative spellbinding tale. Glorifying in the unsurpassed genius of our own spectacular mind.

versus,

the observer, collecting evidence, and allowing the facts to create and dictate our story. Demanding honesty and suppressing our natural ego driven bias as much as possible.

Press enter or click to view image in full siz

Physical Reality ~ Human Mind divide

I suggest it’s the most fundamental observation that can be made regarding our human condition, it provides a realistically intellectual foundation to build a down-to-Earth, bottom-up understanding.

Awestruck Scientist responded:

Even though they also interest me, however in the same way art and music impress me, not in any self-defining manner the way serious science does.

I agree on two accounts, and disagree on one:
I agree with putting theology and philosophy in the same category as art and music - they all arise subjectively.
I agree with the distinction between storyteller and observer, which I would call the subjective and the objective.
I disagree with the notion (I hope I am not misinterpreting here you) that the observer is somehow more relevant than the storyteller. For me they are equally important and true, as long as they don't attempt to usurp the truth claim of the other perspective.

My response:
that the observer is somehow more relevant than the storyteller.
A.S., good point and thanks for making it!
I agree, storytelling is one of humanity's most important advances, I'm not questioning that.
This is about the source of authority used by the authors of the respective styles of storytelling, that I want to shine a klieg light on.
The philosophizing, and literary, storyteller follows their muse, molding their own story and emotions out of their own mind-scapes, as they strive to create, and perhaps share as hopefully, spellbinding stories. They are the masters of their world and their stories.
On the other hand, the scientist story teller is confined to following the known evidence as they plot the outlines and themes of their stories.
As science advances, new evidence comes in, often absolutely unanticipated, and radically rearranging the story. The scientific story honors, by striving to honestly reflection the actual factual, up to date, evidence that the best and the brightest have gathered and shared.
The philosophical. theological, and literary storytelling is all about human ego, wanting to be heard. It's beautiful, I'm right in there with the rest of us who strive to write well and meaningfully, and hope that someone notices.
Still we must understand scientific story telling is all about striving to understand this world we were born into based on solid physical evidence, and about ourselves in the bargain. That's what I owe all my allegiance to.
It's why I identify as an Earth-centrist.
Earth Centrism = Geocentrism. Seriously?
The Missing Key to Stephen Gould’s “Nonoverlapping Magisteria.”
Cheers & have a good weekend.