My enlightening conversation with Science

Science can be difficult, so it’s best to be nice to it.

In this age of disinfo, it’s important to go to the source.  One should never settle for a second or thirdhand account when the straight dope can be gotten from a firsthand wiz.  

With that in mind, when I got the rare chance to rub elbows with Science itself, you better believe I took advantage of it.  Actually, don’t believe me; observe and comprehend what I say, run trials, then evaluate the results of said trials to form an objective opinion based on the observable facts and your unbiased reasoning.

That said, below is the transcript of my interview with THE system of knowledge to end ALL systems of knowledge: Science.

Conversation with Science, January 10, 2022

Me: Science, first off, thank you for agreeing to meet with me.  I understand you have a full schedule.

Science: Not at all.  I’m happy to help.  Happy, that is, in a thoroughly dispassionate way.

Me: Of course.  You’ve defined yourself throughout the centuries — or, millennia actually — as thoroughly dispassionate, even in the face of intense passion.  How do you keep your cool through it all?

Science: Excellent question.  I haven’t really analyzed that aspect of my personality too much, so, to answer your question, I take a lot of mood stabilizers.

Me: Prozac?  Zoloft?  Clozapine?

Science: [Those] are all great drugs but no, I have something much better.  You see, as the system of knowledge that allowed those substances to be developed, I have access to the best stuff.  And, as always, the best stuff’s in short supply, so I tend to keep it to myself.

Me: Got it.  That makes sense.

Science: Yes, it should.  It comes straight from the Science.

Me: What do say to the people who deny you?  All those Science-deniers out there — is there something you’d like to say to them?

Science: What could I say?

Me: Anything you want.  These are the people who wish for your destruction, who deny your very existence.  If you had the chance to say anything to them, like right now, what would it be?

Science: But what could be said to change their minds?  Nothing.  I mean, if I can’t convince them, who can?

Me: Religion, maybe.

Science: Psshhhh.  Religion’s a punk.  Know-it-all punk.  How does it explain diabetes?  Or the tides?

Me: Uh, I’m not sure, but I’m interviewing Religion next week, so I could —

Science: Don’t bother.  You know what Religion’s gonna say: “God this, the Creator that, go to church… yada yada yada.”

Me: I know, it’s kind of a one-note response, but it stays pretty consistent.

Science: Is that supposed to be a question?

Me: Well, uh, no, but wasn’t there a time when you and Religion were tight?  I mean, when you worked together and weren’t so at odds with each other?

Science: Not that I remember.  All my life I’ve had to deal with that wet blanket trying to tell me what’s right, what’s wrong.  “Life is sacred.”  “Torture is bad.”  “Don’t steal cadavers.”  I mean, if we all followed Religion, nothing would get done.  

Me: Perhaps, but don’t you think it’s understandable for people to turn to Religion in those moments when you fail to provide a convincing explanation for seemingly inexplicable phenomena?

Science: Inexplicable phenomena?  Like what?

Me: Well, how about particle-wave dichotomy?  Or how viruses are regarded as both bacteria and organic compounds, though they’ve never been observed outside of, or apart from, animal cells?

Science: Well, I’m getting to that.  I know there’s a simple explanation for those things.  When I find that out, you’ll be the first to know.

Me: A lot of people throughout history have wondered about the origin of the universe, and where human beings come from, and where we’re going.  Can you speak to that?

Science: Already have.  There was a big bang, then there was life, then eventually monkeys, then humans after that, and humans’ll keep evolving until they all have smart devices to aid them in being human.  End of story.  I think I’ve been very clear on those points.

Me: Yes, although the thing about devices aiding humans in being human is a bit confusing.  Could you clarify what you mean by that?

Science: Of course.  Being human is not what it used to be.  Way back when, all you needed was a big brain, two legs and verbal communication.  Now, you need so much more.  There’s hashtags, virtual reality, realistic dolls — by the way, you’re welcome for all of that — but what does that mean for humanity?

Me: Yes — that was going to be my question.

Science: Exactly.  So, in conclusion, if you want answers, you’ve gotta come to me.  Everyone else is selling something.

Me: Thank you, Science.  I appreciate your insights and wish you the best.

Science: I am the best.  Keep your wishes.

On his way out, Science discovered another way to hydrogenate soybean oil and five new uses for aspartame.  Looking ahead, the next challenge to be tackled, according to Science, is how to stop climate change by lobbying only post-industrial nations whose populations are in serious decline.