Is our way of “knowing” better than Columbus’ way?
(I have put knowing in quotations because to me it is a very openly interpretive word. Putting it into a noun, knowledge, for this post I would like to define knowledge as a truth/fact explaining the world)
No, because we essentially “know” things the same way Columbus did. Columbus based his beliefs and actions on what he had experienced and read. He trusted in the intellectual authorities of his age. We do the same thing. Most of us are not genius enough to work out for ourselves all the accumulated knowledge that science has produced. Instead we read summaries and conclusions from the authorities on such matters and then act or believe based on our understanding of these things. We are placing trust in these scientific authorities, even though science is constantly changing and known for a high turnover rate on its theories, as Akthor points out. Perhaps we have better facts and truths than Columbus, but our way of getting at the facts and truths is not so very different. We all do the best with what facts and truths are available to us, this is a continuous human thing, not a new approach to life. It is easy to think of our way of “knowing” as superior to that of Columbus, but in doing so we are acting foolishly arrogant. To be cliché, knowledge is a never-ending quest. We must realize that we are in the same boat as Columbus and that even now in our “modern” age we cannot fully explain the world and I don’t think that it is reasonable to think that we can ever fully explain.
Wednesday, November 19, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Exactly. 400 years from now, arrogant people, in the event everything we thought we know now is apparently wrong, could say they know better.
No, people just know different. We may have different kinds of technologies, but that doesn't make them better. It may make them faster, or more efficient, but better, like knowledge, is a subjective term.
Post a Comment