Has science failed us?

As we observe the world around us today, signs of deterioration and symptoms of degeneration are everywhere evident. We are engulfed by a concatenation of interrelated crises; crises in energy, crises in the global water-balance, crises in agriculture and, worst of all, crises in Nature herself. Wherever we look, things are not going nearly as well as we have been led to believe. The downward spiral of disintegration seems to be accelerating at an alarming rate, with few if any really concrete proposals or action being implemented to arrest it. All of which provokes the question: Has science, the leading light in all our much-vaunted technological progress, somewhere grossly erred?
Had science been in tune with Nature, if scientists had truly understood Nature's inner workings, if science itself operated according to Nature's laws, we ought to have an abundance of everything we need, energy, food, water; but we have not! In actual fact,
science has been far less successful than it claims. It has failed to take note of Nature's
innumerable hints and indicators as to how things should be done and instead has taken
the opposite path. This is not to deprecate the sincere and untiring efforts of many individuals to improve conditions generally.
 
................
 

The thinking of many other scientists, however, has been coloured by the increasingly
mechanistic approach towards life - Deus ex machina - which is not to imply that all the established facts of science and the painstaking, dedicated research that has been
carried out are invalid, but to suggest that their interpretation could perhaps be different.
To date there has been far too much emphasis placed on analysis, the pursuit of minutiae, the development of specialist terminology incomprehensible to other scientific
disciplines, let alone the rest of a humanity ever subservient to the dictates of a science that has become the infallible new God.
According to Viktor Schauberger, science thinks an octave too low and, due to its
purely materialistic approach, neglecting the underlying energetic basis for all physical
manifestation, has lost sight of the integrated whole. Prof. David Susuki, the eminent biologist, once stated that there were at least twenty branches of biology, each of which
had it own jargon, unable to communicate coherently with the others. The individual
feels insignificant in the face of all this vast array of scientific expertise, a condition one
has noticed among acquaintances, when confronted by the towering edifice of the apparently all-knowing, 'Scientific Establishment'.
 
Overwhelmed by this indecipherable complexity and in the belief that any understanding
was impossible, the public at large has relinquished control over its health and
future to the high-priests of science. Viktor Schauberger, however, had other ideas:
 

The majority believes that everything hard to comprehend must be very profound. This is incorrect. What is hard to understand is what is immature, unclear and often false. The highest wisdom is simple and passes through the brain directly into the heart.
 

What use, therefore, is all this analysis if ultimately no synthesis results through which all
the research can be effectively implemented? There is doubtless an ample sufficiency, nay an oversupply of detail, but what is now of crucial importance to our survival on this
planet is that all this vast fund of knowledge should be coordinated and applied practically.
Science, however, is by no means solely to blame for this unhappy state of affairs. - But that is an issue for another time ;-)
 
 
Source:  Coats & Schauberger - Living Energies - Viktor Schauberger's Brilliant Work With Natural Energy Explained (2001).pdf