Science explains everything, but everything is no longer enough

If science explains to us what life is in the present, on the other hand, feeling determines its meaning in the still-present and beyond.

I do not enter into the merits of an argument based on evidence and counter-evidence or steeped in religious belief and vocal opinions. I’m talking, yes, about explanation and interpretation.

Explanation is rewarding, but interpretation is liberating!

When we dare (it will always be so daring) to explain something, we commit ourselves to a logical, methodical and systematic development of the full extent of its phenomenon. Interpretation is at the same time the act of exposing, clarifying and justifying a certain fact, proving a certain logic. For example, when Professor José Renan de Medeiros, the great Brazilian astronomer and astrophysicist, reminds us and practically explains that we are stardust, it is fantastic!

He says, “It is extraordinary to realize that, from the catalytic action that converts hydrogen into helium, throughout the life of a star, many elements, including carbon, nitrogen, and oxygen, will appear, all of which play an essential role in the evolution of the star and the molecules of life. Certainly, though From being completely hostile worlds, however, the stars are the source of life. Certainly, man is stardust!”

It is undoubtedly wonderful. Contrary to what many people believe, this scientifically proven (and current) fact does not diminish our status as human beings, but rather raises all of humanity to a sphere of cosmic dignity, that is, it will not take our place in its place. Such a special situation, where we are what we can be with what we have globally. Although the idea of ​​a deity is beautiful and acceptable to reason, for if it does not conform materially with the principles and laws of logic that we support, it is at least not in conflict with its formal principles. We play for ‘could we be’, a god who ever exists. Weights and measures in the face of transcendence and hope.

Interpretation has a different order with respect to the act of explaining. Interpretation is understanding and/or determining the meaning of a phenomenon. Unlike interpretation, but also inaccessible to those who deny common sense in the name of intuition, interpretation requires time and careful coding. Almost felt.

When we interpret, we create possible versions of the global understanding of a given data set. And though it appeals to a kind of hermetic knowledge, science also has great doses of interpretation, though it dreads assertion of its essentially transient character and hypothesis.

Well, the explanation is to give possible formulas for a problem, a curiosity, anguish, a human need for an answer.

When philosophy (and all the sciences thereof) appeared in the West, in Greece, around the sixth century B.C., with Thales of Miletus stating that everything is water, thus overcoming the ethereal symbols of myth, they sought a way of thinking that reconciled the human mind (and thus, in a simple sense) and nature trying to explain the real without appealing to the imagined. Although it bears an enormous amount of interpretation, this nascent philosophy distanced itself from the poetic narratives in the molds of Homer, Hesiod, and his companions. If, on the one hand, we obtain logical guarantees to explain phenomena, on the other hand, we largely fail to follow the interpretation of Ulysses and his victories and the virtue this brings to us, Achilles and his Myrmidoons. The search for collective loyalty, Zeus and the triumph of the human dream over time. Although they frighten us, fantasies also have the value of propelling us forward, right there, where philosophy and science are explained.

When science explains everything, everything is no longer enough!