Judging Contemporary Exploration Techniques

Question: Is our way of knowing better than Columbus’ way of knowing?

In practice, yes. Our modern ways of “knowing” surpass those of Columbus, due mainly to vast innovations in the field of “knowing” over the past five hundred years. “Knowing” can be defined in many different contexts, but in relation to Columbus’ field of expertise, I would venture to say that his “knowing” encompassed what he believed about the world around him and how he went about learning more. In both senses, our modern methods have outmoded his.

Today, we obviously have a far greater insight into the working of our world than we did in the late-15th century. The most obvious innovation in exploring comes in the form of complete and accurate world maps, which contain only truthful information without relying on conjecture. Even more than that, we have recently completed satellite imagery of the entire world, down in most places (save Bovice’s house) to recognizable clarity. There is no longer any need to “sail into the unknown”, because there are no more blank spaces on the map. We know how large the Earth is, what shape it forms, and how it moves and cycles. In addition to geography, we also possess a greater understanding of the forms of life on earth and how they exist. Where a pious sailor in the late-15th century may have seen a mermaid or a kraken or some other apocryphal creature, modern researchers rely more on detailed records, observed and verified accounts, scientific reasoning, and new observational technologies to prove that such forms of life do not actually exist. Researchers today rely far less on divine explanations for phenomenal events and creatures, mainly because no divine account for such things has ever been solidly verified. It is the nature of today’s scientific method that the most logical reasoning is established.

The means of discovery, as well, have improved to the point where discovery itself is nearly obsolete. The simple ease with which reliable information can be procured proves the superiority of our current practices. Especially since the information revolution and the development of the internet, secrets that once had to be extensively sought out can now be summoned up by anyone in the comfort of their own home. There is virtually no information known to any humans today that cannot be universally known through the internet and mass media. Besides, that which is unknown lies almost exclusively in the scientific field, and realm that explorers such as Columbus are not equipped to deal with. In effect, the expansion of Columbus’s trade has cancelled out its own usefulness.

I see many in my class have answered this question in the opposite manner, pointing instead to the moral ambiguity between Columbus’s methods and actions and modern normative methods and actions. While I understand that the motives held by both parties remain more or less the same, I would say that their actions speak more to the subject. In Columbus’ day, the customary way of dealing with a newfound group of people was to somehow gain ownership rights to their land and subjugate them if need be. Today, this practice is unheard of; in the rare instances of meeting an uncontacted tribe, scientists are assembled and sent to them in a diplomatic way, not to gain their resources but to honestly study their culture and way of life. So to answer one of Totorov’s most important questions, yes, our modern ways of knowing outweigh Columbus’, on both an observational, logistical, and moral level.