When we talk about science, we frequently talk about two different kinds of order without adequately distinguishing between them. One kind of order has to do with laws of causality, the other has to do with conscious intent.
If one lives at the edge of a cliff, it is consistent with the laws of physics to throw one's garbage over the side -- the garbage will fall. But that grave result doesn't take into account other possible or even likely consequences, such as the effect of toxic waste on an eco-system below or on people dwelling at the bottom of the cliff. Some or many of the consequences of an action may be, practically speaking, unknowable. It would take so long and so much energy to find out all the consequences that one would never be able to act. Because inaction itself may have consequences, the dilemma is unresolvable. Therefore one forms intentions on the basis of experience and judgment, not on the basis of a complete assessment of how the laws of causality apply to a given situation. When I say "experience and judgment" I imply memory because it is what we remember from our experience (whether consciously or "subconsciously") that forms the basis of our judgment. If I forget that there may be people living at the bottom of the cliff, it doesn't really matter any more to my judgment that I once knew it. Now, memory doesn't obey the laws of physics but it does obey the laws of nature (I am speaking metaphorically when I use the terms "law", "physics" and "nature", although I am not certain *how* metaphorical). It is possibly that I may capriciously bring to mind only these or those physical laws when forming an intention. If I claim that my action was "scientific" because it scrupulously took into account the physical laws that I capriciously remembered, there is something missing in my account. We might refer to the missing element as humility. Science without humility -- that is without a proper regard for the vagaries of memory and intention -- is unscientific. The fact that the facts emphasized are indeed facts trivializes the relationship between memory, intention, action and causality. Of course, it is entirely possible for people to form intentions that completely disregard causal (or probabilistic) relationships. Otherwise who would buy lottery tickets? Is it somehow "more scientific" to throw one's garbage over the side of a cliff than to buy a lottery ticket because in the former act one has taken into account at least *some* of the laws of causality? How many laws and how much judgment and memory must come into play to distinguish between the scientific and the unscientific? Where does one "draw the line" between science and caprice? Consciousness is qualitative. Analysis forms an important part of consciousness, but consciousness cannot be reduced to analysis. Tom Walker 604 255 4812
