Does questioning your source of knowledge allow the brain to unlearn things that it has previously taken as fact? In this way is doubting knowledge forcing a regression of the brain back to an earlier stage when things were less concrete and knowledge was gained by communication with other people?
Is it that the basis of advanced knowledge that the individual must place trust in the knowledge that they have been given by others in order to advance thier knowledge beyond these bounds? It was taken as part of history that in previous societies it was those who could communicate the information that their people had already learnt on to the future generations that allowed those people to advance and therefore take their society further into the future and thusly lead them towards what we might consider a civilised society.
The people who aquired knowledge by learning what thier people had already discovered were those who went on to make additional discoveries and therefore pass along their previous and also enchanced knowledge to their younger generations. This is the basis of the modern western society, we learn by being told facts by other people who have spent time researching those things. It is a logical way of processing information and passing it onto future generation in order that they can then take the next steps afterwards.
The same is true for many principles, such as doing a task for the second time will often yeild an improvement in the clarity of mind or productivness of that task. In programming, designing a module for the second time from scratch might yeild a far improved program which processes information in a more logical and streamlined way. Is the internet the new way in which we should be communicating information in order to advance our society? Will this vast archive of information prove that we as a people are advanced? Recently in the UK it has been proposed that Coursework be removed as many students are using the internet to cheat on their papers. Are they really cheating or are they in fact using a knowledge base of information that exists in the new digital age?
I’m sure that many academics would be quick to judge that the quality of much of the information on the internet is of questionable quality and thusly not correct for use in any form of academic study. On the other hand is this information in fact just a personal perception of an existing principle? If it is, then how is it any different from the perception of a principle from another person? In this situation it seems to boil down directly to the respect in the field that that person has. Thusly, an academic would have far greater wieght to the information that they command.
Well, surely if this is the case then why are academics not in charge of the internet and only output information that they know is fact. I always recall my Physics teacher telling us that “All the physics we know might be wrong”. Thusly is the problem revealed. If we cannot place faith in the knowledge that we have how can we possibly hope to advance? It seems to me that the most unnerving of all things for a human being is to have the doubt that all they know might be wrong. To think that what you are doing might not be as good as you think, the thought that in fact you might be doing something that isn’t good, compells people into a whirling sense of denial, that “of course it’s true, don’t be so silly”.
So pre-programmed are we that we will fly into the fray to defend that faith we have in the knowledge we have had passed onto us. Surely this is no different from religeon? Or is religeon simply a different form of science? Are they one in the same, with the simple difference that one is based on people being able to test the real world about them and the other being that people would be happy to believe that it is none of their concern and that a greater being will simply take care of it for them. All in all it might be far better for people to just simply focus on the small aspect of their life in which they are comfortable and not have to worry about the large picture around them. Safe in the knowledge that the smaller the area that they control the lower the number of factors that can and possibly might be out of their sphere of control.
Is the universe infinate? or is the universe simply as big as we know it to be? Our sphere of knowledge is a very interesting and intreguing thing. Many people chosing to focus on macro or micro worlds in order to shape their mental state.
- Listening to: The Editors - Camera
