The London Science Museum, like all science museums, informs us of how smart we were to have escaped the ignorance and superstition of the middle ages and landed, ruby red shoed, in the fabulous world of technology. Now, I certainly do not wish to denigrate technology as Heidegger once did, but like most city folks, I need to breathe the wilderness once in a while, even though long ago tamed by recreational vehicles and more recently by an onslaught of iPhones.
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
I especially admire the antique lab instruments made of rusty brass and smoggy glass. They were specifically made for science majors so as to allure them into the world of rationality. Those old professors knew that beauty precedes knowledge and that esthetics grounds science. The unwritten motto of all scientists is: Iff'n it ain't purty, we don't see it. Example: acupuncture needles are not a pretty sight, therefore we cannot see how these needles adjust the electric field around the body. We don't even see the electric field around the body. So how can we even assume it's there? Another Example: it's not pretty to think of planets interacting with people because the interaction cannot be measured, nor explained. Hence, we don't even bother to look.
The 1953 Watson and Crick DNA model attracted me more than any other display because it looked like a Calder mobile.
The twisting spirals reminded me of a magnetic solenoid I made in physics lab at Nashville Tech earlier this year of '75.
We were repeating Faraday's experiments in electricity. Batteries contain acids with bases and so does DNA.
Did that mean DNA was some kind of electro-magnetic battery?
Wow!
I thought, imagining the queen dubbing me Sir Wayne. I may have really discovered something.
But what I really discovered was how the mind thinks by analogy.
The brain is a metaphor machine. Metaphor Machine is also a metaphor because we don't know what the brain is or what it's for. It is certainly not a machine. Maybe it's an antenna. Or an elephant even. But who knows? Paraphrasing Bill Clinton, we don't even know what IS is. It sees similar patterns everywhere even when there is no evidence of a similarity. But what does that mean — no evidence of a similarity? It means the similarity cannot be measured. Measurements keep us honest, makes our opinions verifiable by others, frees us from the tyranny of arrogant authority, and makes it very difficult for acupuncturists, chiropractors, phrenologists, and astrologers to practice their craft.
Nevertheless, to limit our explorations in life to what can only be measured is to limit most of life; for we cannot measure the beauty of Fantasia on a Theme by Thomas Tallis, nor the value of a Turner seascape, nor the truth in a Shakespeare play. This is why God, and any theory including a god, cannot be part of the scientific enterprise. God —or your concept of God— is immeasurable. You may attach a price tag to these things, but it is in vain; for these things are priceless. This fact is evident only through experience, not numbers.
Knowing this makes it difficult to explore one of my favorite interests — astrology. It is extremely difficult to compare Grant Lewi's descriptions, in his Heaven Knows What, to your friends, family, and self without becoming a believer to some extent in the pseudo science of astrology. Measurements will only convince you that you are sorely disillusioned. So should we believe our subjective intuition or objective measurements? That is always the question. But so far, astrology has eluded measurement. We don't have the instruments and if we did we would not know where to point them, and if we did accidentally point them in the right direction, we would not know what we were seeing because the evidence would be invisible to us just as the moons of Jupiter were invisible to the priests in Galileo's time. As a result, Galileo was imprisoned. But what happened to Michel Gauquelin was even worse. When he presented his evidence of a strong corrrelation between one's career choice and one's planetary positions at birth, his data and conclusions were rejected, and Gauquelin committed suicide. Science, like nature, is indifferently cruel.
So should we refrain from theorizing without measurable evidence? Of course not. We will anyway. So here's my version of pretty: the magnetic field surrounding the Earth acts as a huge inductor. Any changes in the solar system, especially with the Sun or Moon, cause fluctuations in the magnetic field. These fluctuations are cyclic producing varying charges. These fluctuations induce a varying charge in our DNA. The first time this induction occurs is at birth, thereby in effect, programming us for life. This is the same principle that explains electro-magnetic induction in the solenoid, only on a much larger to smaller scale. Now where is Maxwell with some numbers?
