For the past few years I maintained a ‘rationality or bust’ mindset. As I finished my English literature degree and entered the world of AI and software engineering, I had to soften my old poetic thoughts and sharpen my new scientific ones, and in the process I became addicted to hyper-logical thinking. Mistake. After a bit of meditation (and, yes, a bit of marijuana), I’ve realised that the totally rational way of thinking is not really meant for humans, but computers. We humans need some woo in our lives, if only as a balm for our ignorance about everything.
Science still wins, of course, because it’s more compelling and more consistent. But who can say that the physical explanation for rainbows or the chemical explanation for paracetamol is entirely satisfying? Not I — there seems to be a missing element, perhaps just awe, which isn’t included in the science. Try block that out and you may sense that your understanding of a rainbow, or paracetamol, is incomplete. Besides, there are other reasons to be wary of extreme rationality: the act of explaining is destructive to the bigger picture (and you don’t want to miss the forest for the trees); scientists don’t have all the answers (for example, it’s still unknown what causes headaches); people in the world can be dishonest or deluded (including scientists and woo propagandists); our minds weren’t built for rationality, and the Enlightenment happened less than 400 years ago so we’ve hardly had time to become accustomed to this new frame of thought. Also, if science decided that something woo-woo did truly exist in our universe, what might the research and terminology look like? I think it would look like quantum mechanics.