Quote by Neil Postman

But in the end, science does not provide the answers most of us require. Its story of our origins and of our end is, to say the least, unsatisfactory. To the question, How did it all begin?, science answers, Probably by an accident. To the question, How will it all end?, science answers, Probably by an accident. And to many people, the accidental life is not worth living. Moreover, the science-god has no answer to the question, Why are we here? and, to the question, What moral instructions do you give us?, the science-god maintains silence.


But in the end, science does not provide the answers most of

Summary

This quote suggests that while science can provide empirical explanations about the origins and ultimate fate of the universe, these explanations may not satisfy some individuals. Science suggests that the beginning of everything was likely accidental and that the end will also be accidental. This viewpoint can be disillusioning for those who find purpose and meaning in life. Furthermore, science cannot answer existential questions about why we exist and what moral guidelines should be followed. Thus, the quote implies that science, while valuable in many aspects, may leave certain unanswered questions and lack a comprehensive framework for understanding human existence and morality.

By Neil Postman
Liked the quote? Share it with your friends.

Random Quotations

Even interpretations based on depth-psychological dream theories often meet with some success; this despite the fact that their assumptions are purely speculative, while conclusions drawn from those assumptions, such as the posited relationship between latent and manifest dream contents, have no basis in fact.Experience teaches, by the way, that patients who assume a observer's stance while dreaming, distancing themselves from active participation with others, require especially stubborn, persistent therapists.Positive declarations of what something means tend to force the therapist into the role of authority figure, at the same time thrusting the patient into subordinate, infantile behavior.Both Freud's original depth-psychological dream theory and all others that have imitated it in defining dreams as attempts at self-deception inevitably end up in a series of logical impasses...Notwithstanding the immense expenditure of theoretical labor in past decades, today - three-quarters of a century later - critical opinion is increasingly eroding depth-psychological theories of dream interpretation. The most skeptical of these critics come from the ranks of the analysts themselves.Because the natural scientific approach from which all depth-psychological dream theories spring is gradually relinquishing its absolute hold on the human imagination, in the future more and more patients will refuse to pass blindly over the inconsistencies hidden in traditional dream theories. Increasingly, they will defend themselves against depth-psychological dream interpretation...The dream reinterpretations posited by depth-psychological theories are not just theoretically untenable; they also prohibit the therapist from gaining the understanding of the dreaming he needs if he is to help the patient.

Medard Boss, I dreamt last night