To Russel Brand and the world about science,
I think your very clever, I also think that you don't really understand what science is. I don't blame you with its poor representation in the media - nobody in the scientific community thinks that the bee sting experiment is a particularly worthwhile use of space in our newspapers. If it portrays science as trivial then issue changes from trivial to dangerous.
You've picked up on the fact the study design has nothing to do with science. 'I rated the pain between one and ten' is a form of measurement that has nothing to do with science. Science is analytical, science is specific; but I am going to try and explain why science doesn't have to be closed minded. I don't blame you for seeing it this way with the incredibly focused intelligence of Richard Dawkins being such a prominent symbol in the Spirituality and Science debate.
For me the true spirit of science is being prepared to be proved wrong at any point. Science is a search for truth and for me a form of spirituality. The arrogance of Dawkins represents science poorly. At it's essence science is a incredibly humble form of search for truths.
I believe in a higher energy: I have felt it in relationships, nature, from music, through drugs, through exercise and even singing Anglican Protestant hymns during my adolescent god phase. I respect all of the world religions as a metaphor or process that people use to try and get closer to this unknown thing that is as yet unexplained.
But I am also very afraid of blind faith. I know that I am human and have been led astray before. I can see from examples of history that blind faith leads humanity in many evil directions. I can not allow myself to entertain the arrogance to hold anything that I know as fact. In it's truest form science is a search for understanding and knowledge that rests on the premise of constantly expecting to be proved wrong.
Einstein once wrote: 'science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind'. Einstein lived his whole life with the believe of something that he could not prove existed: universal governing forces of energy. He would never have discovered them without faith. But neither would he have found them without doubt. In his thought experiments he imagined every single way he could possibly be wrong before deciding that in fact he was probably right.
We all take things at face value. And we all must work to change that. To analyse and imagine and get closer to own personal trews. Stop taking science at daily mail face value and continue the good work.
Eliza Turner
