BOOK SAVES

The logical statements entered into the notebook are

broken down into six categories: (1) statement of the
problem, (2) hypotheses as
to the cause of the problem, (3) experiments designed to
test each hypothesis, (4) predicted results of the
experiments, (5) observed
results of the experiments and (6) conclusions from the
results of the experiments. This is not different from the
formal arrangement of
many college and high-school lab notebooks but the
purpose here is no longer just busywork. The purpose
now is precise guidance of
thoughts that will fail if they are not accurate.
The real purpose of scientific method is to make sure
Nature hasnt misled you into thinking you know
something you dont actually
know. Theres not a mechanic or scientist or technician
alive who hasnt suffered from that one so much that hes
not instinctively on
guard. Thats the main reason why so much scientific and
mechanical information sounds so dull and so cautious. If
you get careless or
go romanticizing scientific information, giving it a flourish
here and there, Nature will soon make a complete fool out
of you. It does it

often enough anyway even when you dont give it

opportunities. One must be extremely careful and rigidly
logical when dealing with
Nature: one logical slip and an entire scientific edifice
comes tumbling down. One false deduction about the
machine and you can get
hung up indefinitely.
In Part One of formal scientific method, which is the
statement of the problem, the main skill is in stating
absolutely no more than you
are positive you know. It is much better to enter a
statement "Solve Problem: Why doesnt cycle work?"
which sounds dumb but is
correct, than it is to enter a statement "Solve Problem:
What is wrong with the electrical system?" when you
dont absolutely know the
trouble is in the electrical system. What you should state
is "Solve Problem: What is wrong with cycle?" and then
state as the first entry
of Part Two: "Hypothesis Number One: The trouble is in
the electrical system." You think of as many hypotheses
as you can, then you
design experiments to test them to see which are true
and which are false.

This careful approach to the beginning questions keeps

you from taking a major wrong turn which might cause
you weeks of extra
work or can even hang you up completely. Scientific
questions often have a surface appearance of dumbness
for this reason. They are
asked in order to prevent dumb mistakes later on.
Part Three, that part of formal scientific method called
experimentation, is sometimes thought of by romantics
as all of science itsel fbecause thats the only part with much visual
surface. They see lots of test tubes and bizarre equipment and people
running around
making discoveries. They do not see the experiment as part of a larger
intellectual process and so they often confuse experiments with
demonstrations, which look the same. A man conducting a gee-whiz
science show with fifty thousand dollars worth of Frankenstein
equipment is not doing anything scientific if he knows beforehand what
the results of his efforts are going to be. A motorcycle
mechanic, on the other hand, who honks the horn to see if the battery

works is informally conducting a true scientific

experiment. He is
testing a hypothesis by putting the question to nature. The
TV scientist who mutters sadly, "The experiment is a
failure; we have failed
to achieve what we had hoped for," is suffering mainly
from a bad scriptwriter. An experiment is never a failure
solely because it fails

to achieve predicted results. An experiment is a failure

only when it also fails adequately to test the hypothesis in
question, when the
data it produces dont prove anything one way or another.

What has brought them to the templeno single answer will coverescape from everyday life, with its painful crudity and
hopeless
dreariness, from the fetters of ones own shifting desires. A finely tempered nature longs to escape from his noisy cramped
surroundings into the silence of the high mountains where the eye ranges freely through the still pure air and fondly traces out the
restful contours apparently built for eternity.
He studied scientific truths, then became upset even more by the apparent cause of their temporal condition. It looked as though
the
time spans of scientific truths are an inverse function of the intensity of scientific effort. Thus the scientific truths of the twentieth
century seem to have a much shorter life-span than those of the last century because scientific activity is now much greater. If, in
the
next century, scientific activity increases tenfold, then the life expectancy of any scientific truth can be expected to drop to
perhaps
one-tenth as long as now. What shortens the life-span of the existing truth is the volume of hypotheses offered to replace it; the
more
the hypotheses, the shorter the time span of the truth. And what seems to be causing the number of hypotheses to grow in recent
decades seems to be nothing other than scientific method itself. The more you look, the more you see. Instead of selecting one
truth
from a multitude you are increasing the multitude. What this means logically is that as you try to move toward unchanging truth
through the application of scientific method, you actually do not move toward it at all. You move away from it! It is your
application of
scientific method that is causing it to change!

zen and the art of motorcycle maintenance, robert m. pirsig Page 52 of 192
What Phdrus observed on a personal level was a phenomenon, profoundly characteristic of the history of science, which has
been
swept under the carpet for years. The predicted results of scientific enquiry and the actual results of scientific enquiry are
diametrically
opposed here, and no one seems to pay too much attention to the fact. The purpose of scientific method is to select a single truth
from
among many hypothetical truths. That, more than anything else, is what science is all about. But historically science has done
exactly
the opposite. Through multiplication upon multiplication of facts, information, theories and hypotheses, it is science itself that is
leading mankind from single absolute truths to multiple, indeterminate, relative ones. The major producer of the social chaos, the
indeterminacy of thought and values that rational knowledge is supposed to eliminate, is none other than science itself. And what
Phdrus saw in the isolation of his own laboratory work years ago is now seen everywhere in the technological world today.
Scientifically produced antiscience...chaos.

The cause of our current social crises, he would have said, is a genetic defect within the nature of reason itself. And until this
genetic
defect is cleared, the crises will continue. Our current modes of rationality are not moving society forward into a better world.
They are
taking it further and further from that better world. Since the Renaissance these modes have worked. As long as the need for food,
clothing and shelter is dominant they will continue to work. But now that for huge masses of people these needs no longer
overwhelm

everything else, the whole structure of reason, handed down to us from ancient times, is no longer adequate. It begins to be seen
for
what it really is...emotionally hollow, esthetically meaningless and spiritually empty. That, today, is where it is at, and will
continue to
be at for a long time to come.

Mi-au plcut amicii ti. Eu nu ajung s cunosc

oameni att de diveri ca tine. Mie mi place lumea!
- Mie nu.

- tiu c nu. Dar mie mi place. Oamenii te caut. Poate c, dac nu te-ar cuta, i-ar plcea mai mu
- Nu- Cu ct i vd mai puin, cu att mi plac mai mult.