(no subject)
"It is the unknown we fear when we look upon death and darkness. Nothing more."
--Albus Dumbledore, Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince by J.K. Rowling
And people have such a penetrating fear of the unknown. This incredibly disappointing English class I'm taking started out with a diagnostic essay. The teacher has a preference for "horror" stories, as I mentioned before, so the topic of the diagnostic essay was either a fear that people have, or an experience where we were fearful for any reason. I wrote about the unknown, and how people are almost universally afraid of it. Death and the darkness are two of the best representations of the unknown.
But how do people deal with this fear? Probably the simplest way to deal with any problem is to investigate it directly. Grab a torch and march on in. This isn't a good metaphor for investigating death, though. You can't really march into death, investigate it objectively, and then come back. I'm not really up on the science of near-death experiences or the concept of technical medical death for short periods of time (recently addressed in an episode of House via a folding knife and a wall outlet). Anyway, I doubt many people would have the balls to try that one.
So what do we do? Make up mythologies about what exists in this unexplorable abyss? Tell our children that there are otherworldly creatures waiting for us when we're finally plunged unwillingly into this undiscovered country? And that they have been watching us since birth, analyzing our movements and thoughts? Making records and calculations? Deciding what is good and what is bad, and what should and should not be? I don't buy it. There are thousands of books that describe what happens and why and how, and there have been for thousands of years. And there's not a single piece of empirical evidence for any of it. While I can't deny that pure empiricism is not the best method of analysis, there is equally no place for pure rationalism.
Scientific development and progress is valuable. Historically, science progresses as far as the scientific ability of the time can manage. At the point where ability fails, but where there is obviously more at work that has yet to be systematized and codified, God is said to be beyond. Throughout the development of physics, progress was made by individuals for great leaps, but at the end of each leap, the innovator becomes overwhelmed and eventually gives up, attributing the remaining complexity and uniqueness to God's work. And progress halts for some period of time, until the next innovator comes along and makes another leap, only to be struck down by some other form of complexity, which they also attribute to God. "I don't know how this works. Nobody can know how this works. Therefore, a higher intelligence must be responsible for it." *hands thrown up into the air*
And modern science? Opposition comes in the form of arguments for Intelligent Design. "It is obviously impossible that something as complex as the human eye could have come from nothing, so it must be the product of a higher intelligence." And this sounds like a cop-out to so few people? It's hard for me to understand how people can possible choose to think that a philosophy of ignorance is more valuable than a philosophy of curiosity and progress. Limiting our imaginations when it comes to scientific development, for reasons other than ethics (which is another controversial issue, I admit), is terrible.
Maybe we shouldn't exactly embrace the unknown, but avoiding it? Giving up on it? I don't buy it. That dog don't hunt. Maybe it's true that there are some things in the universe that cannot be known by us (for whatever reason), but I absolutely sincerely believe that we're nowhere near that sheer cliff. There's still an enormous amount we can learn in a thousand different directions, and I'm going to drop a political statement on you right now, so you might feel somehow betrayed, but it matters who's in charge. I don't just believe that America's president has control over areas and amounts of scientific research: it's a fact. So maybe you agree with me, what can someone do? Voting is good. Do it.
--Albus Dumbledore, Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince by J.K. Rowling
And people have such a penetrating fear of the unknown. This incredibly disappointing English class I'm taking started out with a diagnostic essay. The teacher has a preference for "horror" stories, as I mentioned before, so the topic of the diagnostic essay was either a fear that people have, or an experience where we were fearful for any reason. I wrote about the unknown, and how people are almost universally afraid of it. Death and the darkness are two of the best representations of the unknown.
But how do people deal with this fear? Probably the simplest way to deal with any problem is to investigate it directly. Grab a torch and march on in. This isn't a good metaphor for investigating death, though. You can't really march into death, investigate it objectively, and then come back. I'm not really up on the science of near-death experiences or the concept of technical medical death for short periods of time (recently addressed in an episode of House via a folding knife and a wall outlet). Anyway, I doubt many people would have the balls to try that one.
So what do we do? Make up mythologies about what exists in this unexplorable abyss? Tell our children that there are otherworldly creatures waiting for us when we're finally plunged unwillingly into this undiscovered country? And that they have been watching us since birth, analyzing our movements and thoughts? Making records and calculations? Deciding what is good and what is bad, and what should and should not be? I don't buy it. There are thousands of books that describe what happens and why and how, and there have been for thousands of years. And there's not a single piece of empirical evidence for any of it. While I can't deny that pure empiricism is not the best method of analysis, there is equally no place for pure rationalism.
Scientific development and progress is valuable. Historically, science progresses as far as the scientific ability of the time can manage. At the point where ability fails, but where there is obviously more at work that has yet to be systematized and codified, God is said to be beyond. Throughout the development of physics, progress was made by individuals for great leaps, but at the end of each leap, the innovator becomes overwhelmed and eventually gives up, attributing the remaining complexity and uniqueness to God's work. And progress halts for some period of time, until the next innovator comes along and makes another leap, only to be struck down by some other form of complexity, which they also attribute to God. "I don't know how this works. Nobody can know how this works. Therefore, a higher intelligence must be responsible for it." *hands thrown up into the air*
And modern science? Opposition comes in the form of arguments for Intelligent Design. "It is obviously impossible that something as complex as the human eye could have come from nothing, so it must be the product of a higher intelligence." And this sounds like a cop-out to so few people? It's hard for me to understand how people can possible choose to think that a philosophy of ignorance is more valuable than a philosophy of curiosity and progress. Limiting our imaginations when it comes to scientific development, for reasons other than ethics (which is another controversial issue, I admit), is terrible.
Maybe we shouldn't exactly embrace the unknown, but avoiding it? Giving up on it? I don't buy it. That dog don't hunt. Maybe it's true that there are some things in the universe that cannot be known by us (for whatever reason), but I absolutely sincerely believe that we're nowhere near that sheer cliff. There's still an enormous amount we can learn in a thousand different directions, and I'm going to drop a political statement on you right now, so you might feel somehow betrayed, but it matters who's in charge. I don't just believe that America's president has control over areas and amounts of scientific research: it's a fact. So maybe you agree with me, what can someone do? Voting is good. Do it.