Science
Scientists try to get as much information as they can about the world around them. What they fail to realize is that its all right in front of them, hiding out in the open. The most direct way to know everything about the universe is to just watch what's going on. Every piece of information we can know has its own spot in our consciousness. Someone could use a computer to calculate exactly what sounds are in a room but that's indirect and incomplete. It's much easier just to listen. A taste can be broken down into the chemicals in the food but knowing this isn't the same as actually tasting the food. Any given scene around a person tells the story of the whole universe. The current scene someone is watching necessarily involves the rest of the universe, so when a person knows the current scene he knows all.
posted by Mime Narrator at 7:42 PM
4 Comments:
guess you were stoned.
what's the purpose of instruments you might ask?
some detect phenomena that are undetectable by yourself. (the same way dogs can hear higher frequencies and smell better than humans)
also, instruments provide more precision and repeatability. consider your sense of warmth. it has very poor precision and repeatability compared to a thermometer.
also, readings from instruments make it possible to communicate your measurements to other people.
you get the idea.
any educated person should know these things about the capabilities/limitations of human sense.
first hand experience of phenomena while being most direct and most vibrant is unfortunately usually difficult to represent objectively, communicate, calculate etc.
of course scientists (and anybody educated) know that there aspects of first-hand-experience that cannot be documented rigorously. (qualia are ineffable) on the other hand, measurable aspects of phenomena, because they are measurable, lend themselves to the methods of science, and have produced lots of useful things. things that could never have been achieved if everyone shunned instruments. (medicine, electronics, cars...)
Right but why should anybody bother with all that at all. While you may not directly experience every frequency of sound you do experience the complete state of the universe as far as you are concerned. There may be some unhearable frequency but that frequency affects other things which we do eventually sense directly. Its all right here, right now, and theres no reason we can't just sit quietly and listen.
Why should anyone use instruments that can detect and measure phenomena that humans cannot?
I won't answer that directly, just know that if no one bothered to do the above, we wouldnt be living in an industrialized, technological world. No automation, no internet, medicine etc.
No one said that YOU have to use the fruits of science and technology, you could pack up and live in the woods without electricity, tap water, sewage etc. But if you choose to enjoy the conveniences of technology, i think it is foolish/hypocritical to diss the methods of science. (I'm not saying that you definitely did diss science, but some might interpret it that way.)
Let me be specific.
>> "Scientists try to get as much information as they can about the world around them. What they fail to realize is that its all right in front of them, hiding out in the open."
1. There is information that is only available with the help of instruments. Information that is crucial to science.
2. Most people would agree that qualia, or first hand experience seems to be fundamentally ineffable. But without using any instruments, it is impossible to develop most of the findings of science. And without science, you don't have the conveniences of technology.
>> "Any given scene around a person tells the story of the whole universe."
Huh?
Here's one of many easily constructed counterexamples:
In front of you is what looks like a blood stain.
Can you tell if it is really blood? Can you tell if it is _human_ blood? Can you tell whether it is person A's blood? You said you know the story of the universe from the scene around you. In a pre-technological world, it will be near impossible to tell. Nowadays, you can.
heh. this is what happens when a sober person responds to a pothead-point-of-view.
I do not know who's blood it is, but I know it is a blob of, well, im not even going to say red, but it is what it is, and that is a complete description of the current state of the universe. Whether it is person A's blood, or blood at all, or any of that, is all a part of the added complexity of science. This has nothing to do with reality, but only contructed systems of catagorizing reality. These systems to have their uses. Admittedly, if you want to have technology, you need to do science. My point is at the core of things, if one would just sit and watch the universe, without language or science or any of that, they would be content. They would see everything. Science has its practical uses.
Post a Comment
<< Home