Under My Sofa

Conclusions

I know I don't have the most generic view
I extrapolate theories with facts way too few
But hypothesising is just what I do
Scientific conclusions aren't always thought through

I'm not the sort to join the long queue
Of people waiting for answers to
Problems they never really knew
Instead I prefer to start anew

I form theories quick, but I change them too
Rather than taking the conclusions others drew
I'm not stuck in my ways, but I like answers too
Quick to think and quick to review

Answers hold a certain beauty
They're just theories wrapped up incredibly neatly
So I try never to believe them too completely
Proof is impossible categorically

Even the things that seem so true
Can very suddenly be disproved
Cynicism isn't always a curse
It's sometimes a side effect of being well versed

In the art of always being the first
To support a hypothesis and to thirst
For another take on the same problem
It's possible to favour all of them

The problem I feel at the stem
Is the concept of science being a competition
With all the different thoughts conflicting
And the idea that being correct is the main thing

When really we all have a common aim,
To write down the code to the universe's game
We may not morally be the same
But we're not as empirical as we claim

To conclude a problem we need one to begin,
And in the end humanity starts with bare skin
We think we find our questions from deep down within
But the depth of them winds up as paper thin

Science, maths, it's all very well
But religion has us all under its spell
Our societies founded on heaven and hell
Right and wrong, virus and cell

We can find answers, theories, they're within our sights,
Illuminated by holy light
But is it all black and white?
Are the questions we ask really right?

***

Hey guys,

Ever considered that while science and religion are painted as opposing forces, it's past religion that laid out all the things we deem important, the same things science works off of?

I don't really deem them as opposing at all, in the sense that science was originally an attempt to prove religion.

However my point here is that the questions asked by science are directly, some may argue wholly, influenced by what individuals within society deem as important.

And that has been dictated by the moral and sociological codes laid out in both the law and common opinion, founded in religion.

They are not so different really, speaking as a mathematical philosopher. (Realised there's a course for me at uni as well, woot woot!)

Of course, there are fundamental differences between them, however not nearly to the extent that is perpetuated by the 'atheist scientist' stereotype.

*says the agnostic mathematician like the hypocrite she is*

But seriously, don't know if this is important to anyone else, but I don't deem it as an all or nothing situation.

Alex xxx