2025-05-18

What is it about "scientific" people and this obsession with the observable reality being the only reality that we must be concerned about? Why does it seem like the reality of an object depends on whether or not it can be measured? Since when did the primacy of numbers begin to govern the pure definition of the real?

Even if I had encountered it a lot of times, this hyperfixation of people in STEM fields on insisting the scientific method to verify the certainty of an object's existence has become its own religion. In this light, I don't mean to say that it is wrong. It is completely valid as a verification method in determining how accurate we are at describing specific aspects of reality. It is one way of interpreting how the world works, which has also sprung from the never-ending state of questioning the mechanisms of the world that has been brought by the field of philosophy.

Now, it feels like science itself does not want to concern itself with philosophy. It has become its own entity that attempts to bring certainty to the world. The purpose of doubt in this field is a required characteristic of a scientist to try various methods of knowing in order to arrive at the one infallible truth of understanding why the world seems as it seems.

I used to love science ever since I was a kid. I loved the visual aesthetic of how a formula is written, as if I was trying to learn a universal yet ancient language that can only be understood by an elite few. It gave me a sense of exclusivity and intellectual drive to understand what everything means. The world as it was back then, was gentle enough to hide its violent secrecy of numbers and equations.

It has become its own esoteric language and further specialization in science is becoming more obscure. The same trajectory is paralleled by the Humanities. Philosophy and theory are becoming more and more abstract, and perhaps in this abstraction, is where STEM and Philosophy diverges from one another. One is an abstraction that is revealed through the history of equations and one is revealed through the history of pure thought.

Because of this branching, we still haven't developed (or at least not that I am aware of) a type of language that can bridge this gap. From what I can see, both are heading towards the same direction as asymptotes of interpretation of the world. As this current overproduction of ideas are being fueled by AI, we need meta-interdisciplinary thinking more than ever to look at what we have and connect more dots from different fields and define more points of convergence before we all get buried underneath this language that we have been shrouding ourselves with to justify our difference.