Let’s talk about something that we can call “scientific naming bias”.
How I realized the existence of this bias, was through communicating with a medical professional (my psychiatrist). I showed him one of my drawings, that represents the idea of expansion starting from the origin point. The expansion movement of the lines had a spiral pattern.
Being a medical professional, he said the drawing resembles an [embryo] and the expansion movement resembles its [growth]. And that also reminds him of the stages that [embryo] goes through up to a certain time period.
(In a time when it wasn’t named yet) What happens when first “scientific names” are given, is this: Scientist sees a point of origin. After a while, the scientist sees a shape. Which means the scientist observes its movement. He/she realizes it is a movement of expansion. The scientist also then realizes the identifiable changes in the observed being.
In fact, we can replace “scientist” with “human”, for every human that reads how The Creation manifests shall see these similar aspects of creation.
When “human” takes the role of an “artist”, these aspects of creation manifest through artistic creation. When “human” takes the role of a “mother”, these aspects of creation manifest through creation-of-life. If they share similar aspects, then both events can also be called birth.
Now, when the “human” takes the role of a “scientist”, he observes and records (writes) the event-of-birth. Then, he gives names to the forms that have been seen. When understood and named in a biological manner, then
- The point of origin is named as [egg]
- Shape is named as [embryo]
- Expansion movement is named as [growth]
- Identifiable changes are named as [growth stages]
- The being is named as [baby].
However, I would like to attract attention to the first “phenomenon of reading”. What “human” sees in his sight, is always a geometrical form, and not a name. We then name the read-phenomena, to better remember “what-has-been-named”.
In art, this naming process isn’t essential, which means the artist can create without naming the “aspects of creation”. However, for the scientist, the naming is essential; for science is built on the activities of observation and record.
Therefore, I was able to make meaning out of some communication issues I previously had observed. (At first) This can be described as a communication issue between the artist and the scientist. But at a deeper level of understanding, all communication issues are based on the principles of dialectics of polarities. The dialectics of creator and observer, inner and outer, feminine and masculine, emotion and thought, yin and yang…
So, where is the “bias”?
Bias occurs when there is an imbalance between polarities. The desire and tendency to see only one side of the story, positions as at one of two sides. When in reality, the polarities exist only in a unified manner. Therefore, when a “human” that takes the role of a “scientist”, solely depends on observer side of the dialectic, we can say he has a potential of falling into the “scientific naming bias”. Which means, he fails to recognize the inner-creative aspects of the observed phenomenon.
So, how can we overcome this “imbalance between polarities”?
The answer I shall give was also the seed of this very article. It is only possible through finding an understanding of what “creation” means, which leads us to the idea of The Creator. The Religion unifies the polarities in the understanding of The Creator. Only then, we can find the same underlying meaning in both art and science, through understanding The Creator.
Here is that seed of understanding I find, and present:
Read, with the name of your Guidance Creator.
Qur’an, Surah of Alak, 1st versicle
(First versicle of Qur’an)
23.12.2024
