Scientific Awe

The superior nature of the laws of logic, both when it comes to metaphysical self-necessity that is not dependent on anything else and when it comes to its absolute certainty and supreme epistemological foundationality, might weaken a person's enamorment with science in all of its facets, especially because scientific events and correlations are not even verifiable beyond the level of subjective perceptions.  They are secondary either way to reason, hinging on it.  None of this actually has to interfere with someone's appreciation for scientific laws or the scientific method, whether that involves focusing on correlations they personally observe in daily life or ideas they would have no reason to reflect on unless prompted by hearsay (such as quantum physics, volcanic geology, and so on).

I have encountered people who trivialize scientific clarity, to the very limited, ambiguous extent that science brings clarity only to what seems to be occurring specifically to the metaphysically contingent (on the laws of logic, the uncaused cause, and preceding empty space) external world of matter, for a separate reason.  This one is not legitimate.  They suppose that having more scientific information weakens a person's ability to experience awe/wonder, as if there is some apparent moral obligation to feel awe or as if this is not a subjective reaction altogether.  Aside from matters that have not yet been fully explored with the senses directly or by technological extensions, even familiar scientific laws or events could sustain fascination, time after time, in someone's mind.

It is in a sense strange that a certain kind of light (that from a solar body approximately 93 million miles distant) would darken the skin, and the results of this correlation last differing amounts of time for different people.  It is strange that out of all the objective logical possibilities that transcend mind and matter, there are creatures very much unlike those of the planet's landmasses reported all the way down to the bottom of the oceans, where pressure and darkness and scarcity of opportunities to eat present their own impact on life.  It is strange that, again, out of everything that is logically possible--and anything that does not contradict axioms or what follows by necessity from something else is possible even if untrue--there would be billions of microorganisms teeming within one's body, unnoticed by macroscopic, external perception.

Would it be expected based upon ordinary macroscopic experience that there would be nuclei of protons and neutrons orbited by electrons, particles which supposedly do not break down into other extremely miniscule particles, while the units of the nucleus reduce to various quarks?  Even if familiar to many, the phenomenon of gravity and how it holds objects on the world could be subjectively alluring, though it is far from being as central as the inherent truth of logical axioms, the uncaused cause behind the universe one way or another, and the direct, absolutely certain nature of introspection.  Radiation, genetics, thermodynamics, and more all have their own nuances, and, though these nuances are utterly trivial compared to those of higher philosophical issues like strictly logical truths or God's nature whether or not the uncaused cause is the Yahweh of the Christian religion, they can inspire deep captivation.

A person could be fascinated by these concepts and their seeming observational, probabilistic evidence even knowing that much of what is experienced in the external world could be an illusion and the truth of this is unverifiable either way.  In fact, having more scientific information could make them experience a deeper fixation that does not exclusively pertain to curiosity towards unexplored aspects of nature, but to what is already perceived.  Awe or wonder is never the inevitable reaction of a mind to scientific notions or experiences, but it is also not automatically quelled by observational or experimental information.  A still stronger fascination could be had towards the deeper ways that science depends on more fundamental philosophical truths than anything having to do with laws of nature.  

No one can know if scientific events exist apart from conscious, subjective perception, for instance, for no one can observe them apart from observation to discover this and there is no independent logical necessity in this being the case, and the subjective intoxication of awe can be united here with the absolutely certain knowledge of reason, the supreme reality, as what logically follows from scientific experiences and concepts in particular is grasped.  What one person feels towards science does not dictate its nature in any way. While the objective, intrinsic laws of logic reveal that science is far from inherent--there could have never been an external world at all, much less the exact correlative events we see therein--and while scientific laws are not metaphysically central whatsoever, feelings of wonder are not contrary to having more clarity about the cosmos.