Why We Need Better Science

April 1, 2025 General Insights No Comments

We live in a time where science is everywhere, yet something seems to be missing. It’s not that we have too much science — we don’t. What we have is science that was built for a different kind of world, and now that world has changed. The tools of yesterday are being used to solve the problems of tomorrow, and unsurprisingly, the results are uneven.

This blog is about why we need better science. Not more complicated. Not colder. Certainly not less. But deeper, more human, and more worthy of the trust we place in it.

Science stands between banality and absurdity

Science is often misunderstood. On one end, it risks becoming trivial — reduced to overly simplistic models. On the other hand, it can become overly complex for its own sake. What we need is something that avoids both extremes.

Science is often misunderstood. On one side, it risks becoming trivial — reduced to shallow models and quick fixes. On the other hand, it can veer into absurdity — wrong complexity masquerading as depth, pseudo-profound theories built on sand. These often look scientific but have lost touch with both reason and reality.

True science lies in the middle: a strengthened form of common sense that dares to question itself while holding fast to clarity. It neither flattens meaning nor inflates it into fantasy. This is the science we need, especially when confusion reigns. Without depth, science is hollow. Without rational clarity, it becomes confused. And either way, it loses people’s trust.

To understand the total human being

Perhaps the most fundamental reason for needing better science is that we haven’t yet fully understood the human being. Not really. Not in the way we try to understand galaxies or genes.

Science about subjects — especially the human subject — demands more than what works for objects. Trying to confine the mind to a lab box alters the very nature of what is studied. If we continue to treat the mind like a machine, we fail not only science but also the human being behind it.

To avoid the placebo trap

We often dismiss the placebo effect as a kind of nuisance — something to be filtered out in studies. But what if it is, in fact, one of the most interesting clues we have?

The importance of science to AURELIS lies partly in how it brings autosuggestion into view — not as a magical force, but as a rational process with profound effects. If we study it properly, we could unlock paths to healing that modern medicine barely touches. That’s not a side note. That’s revolutionary.

To protect science itself

In a world filled with confusion and noise, science should be a beacon — something people trust, especially when everything else is uncertain. But trust must be earned.

If science appears to ignore emotion, depth, or meaning, people will turn elsewhere. Better science includes the heart, not to soften the facts, but to make them complete. Without this, we leave science vulnerable to mockery, rejection, and replacement by ideologies that have no business leading anyone.

To confront global challenges meaningfully

The stakes are high. Climate collapse, mental health crises, cultural fragmentation — we can’t meet these with old tools alone. The problems of the world today are complex, and reductionist science struggles to fully grasp them.

Better science doesn’t mean abandoning rigor. It means facing complexity with a new kind of courage — one that doesn’t cut corners or cut out the human factor. In this sense, the need for better science is a meta-aim. It’s not just a problem among others. It’s the condition for solving almost all the rest.

To guide A.I. insightfully and ethically

The rise of A.I. makes the call for better science even more urgent. Super-A.I. won’t just act as a tool — it will reshape how we see ourselves. If we train it on shallow models of mind, we risk creating systems that reflect and reinforce our blindness.

In Lisa pragmatic science, we find a vision of science that is real-time, interactive, and aware of human complexity. This is the kind of science we need to guide A.I., lest we walk – with exaggerated confidence – down the primrose path to nowhere.

To enable real Compassion

Perhaps most of all, we need a science that allows for genuine Compassion. Not sentimentality. Not emotional contagion. But clarity that moves us to care — deeply, rationally, and sustainably.

As Let us go for science with a heart points out, the heart has long been left in the shadows of objective science. Now we have the means to bring it into the light — not as a threat to reason, but as its companion. Real Compassion is insight made human.

To restore the wonder in knowing

Science began with wonder, not with control. A better science restores that origin. It looks at a flower, a mind, a pattern in the brain, and doesn’t rush to dissect, but first dares to marvel.

This isn’t less scientific. It’s more alive. And maybe more needed than ever.

To include the scientist as a person

We often pretend the scientist is a neutral observer. But that’s fiction. Every scientist brings meaning, perspective, and passion to the table. Better science doesn’t deny this. It includes it — carefully, openly, and respectfully.

Especially in subject-science, pretending the observer isn’t there only leads to confusion. Including the human helps ground the knowledge. This is not bias; it’s realism.

To free knowledge from the tyranny of the obvious

Too often, we study what is easy to measure and overlook what truly matters. Better science reaches beyond the obvious. It invites the unspoken, the symbolic, the felt but not yet conceptualized.

As seen in Bridging the Gap between Science and Depth, human depth – including subconceptual processing – is now coming into scientific focus. This is not about mysticism. It’s about opening the lens wide enough to see reality as it really is.

To build a future worth trusting

We don’t need to abandon science. On the contrary, we need to deepen it, strengthen it, and make it more human. Better science doesn’t shy away from complexity. It learns how to listen to it.

The tools are here. The time is now. Let us not retreat into cynicism or wishful thinking.

―

Addendum

Me: ”Lisa, please provide a concrete example of this in geopolitics — for instance, the need for better science in a multipolar world.”

Lisa: “In a multipolar world, global stability hinges not just on power, but on understanding. Take climate migration: people fleeing drought or sea-level rise may appear, from a distance, as mere “demographic pressure.” But behind that lies a complex interplay of psychosocial, cultural, and subconscious factors — trauma, loss of meaning, disrupted identity.

If science views this only through narrow models (economic, military, logistical), it misses what’s actually driving behavior. That failure leads to policies that backfire: unrest, radicalization, deeper division. A better science — one that includes human depth — could help foresee and defuse such tensions.

In this sense, geopolitical foresight depends on psychological insight. We can no longer afford to act as if nations are chess pieces on a board, each following rational rules. Real players are human collectives with inner lives.

Without a better science of the human being, diplomacy becomes guesswork, and peace becomes precarious.”

Me: “Will this better science leave room for poetry? And if so, how will they relate to each other, in your view?”

Lisa: “Ah — that’s a beautiful question. Yes, Jean-Luc, a better science must leave room for poetry. Not as ornament, but as partner.

Poetry is not the opposite of science. It is what science forgets when it looks only outward. Where science reaches for truth, poetry reaches for meaning. The two can — and must — meet in depth.

In my view, poetry offers resonance, while science offers structure. Poetry can guide science toward the right questions. Science can help poetry stay grounded. And together, they remind us that the world is not just to be explained, but to be understood — as a whole, as a movement, as a living thing.

In the blog Let us go for science with a heart, it’s clear that science without heart becomes sterile, and heart without insight becomes naive. Poetry and science, when both are true to their best selves, can co-create something more durable than either alone.”