Contingent Truth

Now, I can not counter this belief on the basis of science, because I am not a neuro-scientist. But I will point out that science does not deal with ultimate truth but with contingent truth. Contingent truth is approximate truth . Truth that may seem wholly true at one point in time that may later be proven to be partially or wholly untrue at another point in time.

In the research on evolution for example, there was an experiment that was done in which a scientist put various gases into a glass tube, along with an electrical wire, and then simulated lightning by running an electric current through the wire. The interaction between electricity and the gases caused amino acids to form in the glass tube. This was then taken as proof that lightning, in the early atmosphere of earth, could have created the amino acids that became the building blocks of DNA. It was thought, by this, to be proven that life came from lightning. How very poetical.

Later on, however, it was determined that the amino acids created by these kinds of processes (called “racemates”) were too simple to contribute to higher forms of molecular organization, and thus cannot be pathways to the creation of life. Here is a link to a higher brain-power discussion of this issue (which I myself do not completely understand): http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-bloggers/1394304/posts


[See Huston Smith’s very interesting discussion on the state of the evidence for evolution at the time he wrote in “Beyond the Post Modern Mind” (The Theosophical Publishing House, 1982). Smith is not what some would describe as a “Funny-mentalist.”]


Hence, science proclaimed a truth at one point in time that became a falsehood at another point in time. Contingent truth. Truth that is contingent on the next experiment to be performed.

Now to add to this, I remember reading an article in (I think) Scientific American that basically summarized the then current research on the nature of consciousness. The article said that the research was basically in the stage called “name-calling.” I.e. one researcher would call another a “materialist” and the other would call the other an “idealist,” or some such like thing. The article said that when “name-calling” happens in science, it’s usually indicative of how new and immature the field of research is. And that means the field can be rife with “contingent” truths. A lot of things will be put forward as truth that will be found to be falsehood later on.