Tuesday, October 16, 2012
Only Uncertainty Is Certain
For your first post in our consideration of Experimental Science as a
way of knowing, please transcribe your science quotation, then provide a
close reading of the text, along the lines of our group work from today. Patiently follow your ideas to their ends,
and embrace multiplicity of meaning. Do this writing for Thursday morning. For next Tuesday, please read and respond to the post below yours from the first round (if you are the final poster from the first round, respond to the first post). Augment your classmate's reading with your own analysis,
both of the text she provides and of her close reading. Critique,
refute, reinforce, explore. We will pick up the discussions in our next classes.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
“The voyage of discovery lies not in seeking new horizons, but in seeing with new eyes.” ——Marcel Proust
ReplyDeleteWhen I read this quote, the first idea that popped up in my mind is math. I think math is a process of both solving different problems and learning new ways of thinking. In my math class, we study a variety of materials including algebra and geometry. I used to think that math is just solving the problem in order to get the right answer. Although there are so many topics in mathematic such as logarithm, geometry and function, my goal was to find a solution for these different types of questions. In this process, I was learning, but I was not discovering the principle of math. However, later I realized that it was not only about what, but also about how. No matter what math question it is, the way to solve it is the most important. For example, there may be a question that can be solved by different methods. Some people prefer to do it algebraically, but others like to solve it geometrically better. For me, I usually prefer algebra, but whenever I find out that the same problem can be solved by graphing, I think it is very fascinating because I never think that way. During this process, I am both learning and discovering.
In my opinion, new horizons can be the constantly changing facts around me because when one person has a voyage in the ocean, he can never stay in the same spot, and his horizon always change. The goal of his voyage is not to find more horizons, but to find out the significance of these new horizons. Sometimes they can tell him that the ocean is tranquil; other times they may tell him that there is a rainstorm coming. My environment is also changing all the time whether or not I realize it. My decision to study in the U.S. can be a new horizon for me. The first couples of weeks for me were a total shock, and I felt like I did not fit into this environment. Later, I realized that maybe I should change my attitude on the new environment and the significance of the difference. After that, I felt more confortable, and had more confidence to keep my head up. Both of the example tell me the different significances of changing. I can be changed by outside factors which I cannot control, but I can control my own changing. Sometimes I just need to change a way of thinking, and it will help me to get out of my bewilderment.
”New ideas are always criticized – not because an idea lacks merit, but because it might turn out to be workable, which would threaten the reputations of many people whose opinions conflict with it. Some people may lose their jobs.”
ReplyDelete–Physicist, requested anonymity
~New ideas are always questioned because of the unfamiliarity of the topic. People today have trouble accepting change in the way they are very used to what they already know. New ideas aren’t questioned because people believe they are wrong but actually because it may criticize and question previous ideas which would create conflict. People gain merit coming up with new ideas, and so if there is something new, those people will loose their spotlight. Ideas are continuous patterns that keep on developing into deeper and deeper concepts.
~Whenever I think of a new original idea, I know in the back of my mind some people may not agree, because perhaps that think their idea is better. Ideas come and go so frequently, so many are not even spoken about. People are afraid to share their ideas because of the risk of being turned down or criticized. I know that sometimes I refrain from sharing a new idea, because I don’t think it will be accepted, or I don’t want to put someone else down.
~Science is ongoing, and new ideas will keep coming whether scientists like it or not. People need to be more open to change even if it might threaten their reputations. New ideas are very helpful to the developing world, and shouldn’t be stopped. I want to learn to embrace every idea that comes to me, because by reading this quote I now understand the importance of new ideas and not always being “certain” is okay.
“Physical concepts are the free creations of the human mind and are not, however it may seem, uniquely determined by the external world.”-Einstein/Infeld in “The Evolution of Physics” 1938.
ReplyDeleteClose reading possibilities-
1)Ideas about physically seen objects are open to be altered by people’s prejudges and are not what could simply be seen as simple and easily defined.
2)A free mind is a mind that can create physical concepts and these concepts are never changed by the world around them.
“Physical concepts are the free creations of the human mind and are not, however it may seem, uniquely determined by the external world.”-Einstein/Infeld in “The Evolution of Physics” 1938.
DeleteI agree with one of Jane's ideas about this quote because ideas can be physically seen in terms of seeing people follow through with them. When this happens, the outside world has the opportunity to judge and alter the idea. I don't agree with the idea that "a free mind is a mind that can create physical concepts ad these concepts are never changed by the world around them." A free mind CAN create physical concepts but are constantly changed by the world around them.
Physical concepts- are ideas that have been constructed from "outside your mind contributors" they are influence by other things, not just from inside your head. So this means, all ideas and concepts are physical concepts, because we cant just think of things without having prior knowledge.
I think that physical concepts are the free creations of the human mind, and no matter how hard we try, they will always be altered and ever-changing. It can be altered inside your mind, but also everyone and everything outside a mind, influences and changes the initial "concept." They then are not technically free creations because something free is "not under the control or in the power of another; able to act or be done as one wishes" so having outside things influence a concept or idea, takes the "freeness" away. The external world, creates everything inside of it because without having others, or things in the world we wouldn't be able to build off of each other. There would be nothing.
~Science for me is very close to art. Scientific discovery is an irrational act. It’s an intuition which turns out to be reality at the end of it --and I see no difference between a scientist developing a marvelous discovery and an artist making a painting. ---C. Rubbia, Nobelist and director of CERN.
ReplyDeleteScience can be related to art by its complexity and the idea that everybody looks at it in different ways. For example the many different theories of how the world was created. Some people believed that the world just evolved from a giant mass of rock that got caught in orbit, other believe in the Big Bang Theory. Science as an irrational act is an interesting statement. This would mean that any scientific discovery were unrealistic or not logical, when the product of the discovery helps us understand our world better, and in more detail. Some people may be taken back and be very cautious of a new discovery, just like trying to adjust to a new style of artwork. It takes times to understand what is going on and it’s impression and reasoning. “It’s an intuition which turns out to be reality at the end of it”, meaning that which ever way you interpret science or a piece of art work the overall picture is the same, the only difference is what each person takes away from it.
“Science advances funeral by funeral.” -Planck(?)
ReplyDeleteScience is a powerful study in this world. Many answers have been unlocked and diseases cured. But, what about what science has not answered? What about what nature controls? The quote “science advances funeral by funeral” could refer to a specific area of study such as stem cell research or the broad topic of evolution. In the core of the quote is the benefit of a human death for science. I say human because it is typically humans who have funerals. In stem cell research, an embryo’s stem cells are extracted and specialized to carry out certain duties to help the intended patient potentially recover and be cured of a disability such as Alzheimer’s Disease. The death of the embryo advances stem cell research. In evolution, the theory of the “best fit” surviving would come into play. As there are deaths and the passing of time, evolution is natural as well as inevitable and our species becomes better adapted to the changing world. Science advances through this by the possibility of either the elimination of certain diseases and in the study of genetics. These are two examples of an extensive list in which science may benefit from the death of a human being. This is a darker outlook on science.
“We know accurately only when we know little; with knowledge doubt increases.” - Goethe
ReplyDeleteTranscription: When we only have a little to know, we can know it very well. We can study it from various aspects and even claim to feel certain about some or all of its properties. When we learn more, and therefore have more to study, we cannot be as sure on all counts about what the subject of the knowledge entails. The more we learn, the less we know about what we're learning.
I'm not sure whether I agree with myself or not when I say that the more we learn the less we know. it seems that this is, in a way, what Goethe is trying to say with his statement of "with knowledge doubt increases." However, I don't think that my interpretation captures what the real meaning of the statement is. Let me try again. The more we learn, the more doubts we have. This does not, however, mean that we know less. Can doubt not be a medium for learning? Not only should doubt drive innovators to think again, but it also is a lesson in and of itself. Doubt tells a person that something might not be right. There, see? you just learned something! Maybe it isn't a golden nugget of knowledge, but it still pushes creation forwards and mistakes back. Doubt leads people to clarify and take a second look, often resulting in a better product or understanding of something than had been previously possible. Knowing accurately is overrated if it it means narrowing your view.
One important piece that is missing is that the accuracy of one's knowledge is determined by themselves. I believe this is what Goethe centered this belief of his around.
DeleteThe more ignorant one is, the more definite he or she is. When ignorance is faltered because of exposure to alternate possibilities and realities. I do agree with Caroline that doubt can lead to learning, but I question whether it leads to absolute knowledge, which is the more relevant question. It is true some doubts lead to clarifications, but there are some unanswerables (depending on your time period) where one cannot have all the answers to. Or, one believes they are knowledgable and therefore create all the answers the world needs.
Lastly, I will point out the variation of the word knowledge in the quote. "We know accurately when we know little; with knowledge doubt increases." "Know" has a different meaning than "knowledge" because in the first part of the quote knowledge relies on the belief of the holder of knowledge. If one believes they know, then they know. In the second part Goethe makes it seem as though knowledge is not belonging to the holder. Instead of knowledge for the second part I would suggest a more accurate phrase such as "when knowledge becomes less shallow does doubt become apparent." With this, the meaning of knowledge does not contradict the first part's and it shows that there was no doubt when one knew little which is shown when goethe says "doubt increases" wchich would make the individual less knowledgable.
“I can live with doubt and uncertainty and not knowing. I think it is much more interesting to live not knowing than to have answers that might be wrong.”
ReplyDelete- Richard Feynman
This is a quote that describes an attitude with which I entirely agree. What I understand from it is that it is better to admit that we cannot know something rather than believe what there is no semblance of proof for. By proof, I mean proof relative to a human’s ability to find evidence.
The first example that comes to mind is religion. The attitude I adopt towards religion is the one encapsulated by the quote. Rather than speaking in absolutes and claiming that God does or does not exist, I prefer to admit that I do not know and I cannot know. I would prefer to stay on that middle ground rather than make a claim that I do not have proof to back up. It’s just like Karen says in History class; if you don’t have evidence to back up your point, don’t use it [the point].
But then again, this is all somewhat self contradictory because knowledge itself is belief after all. Experimental science consists of humans conducting experiments in order to gain knowledge and belief about the movement of certain particles or objects. This again relates to proof relative to a human’s ability to find evidence. By considering this meaning, Feynman’s attitude can be considered in two different ways. Theoretically, nothing can be known (which is a paradoxical statement in itself). That would mean that every answer would be wrong which reinforces the belief that we know nothing. However, the meaning changes when we take human ability into account. Perhaps Feynman means that it would be better to admit uncertainty when we cannot prove that answers are correct. That meaning of the quote takes experimental science into account because the knowledge that is derived from experimental science would then be correct.
However, I find a question arising in my first understanding of the quote.
What makes an answer right or wrong? Isn’t right or wrong determined by humans in the first place? How can we incorporate a human method of judgment with a seemingly absolute idea? Language is full of self contradictions.
Something I find interesting is that Richard Feynman doesn’t mention what his attitude would be towards “right” actions. Would he think it might be more interesting to live not knowing rather than have answers that are right?
While I may agree with Feynman’s kind of attitude, it is highly subjective depending on the person. Not all people can live with not knowing as Richard Feynman can. In fact, it is scary to admit that you cannot know something. When I first started coming to terms with the fact that I might no longer exist ever again after I died, a sort of panic rose in me. I imagined sleeping for ever and ever and ever; never to live again. People would eventually forget me and it will be as if I never existed. Of course, if I believed in Heaven or Hell, then that fear within me would be resolved; I would be able to live forever. However, I could not accept that as an absolute, even if it did placate me. The thought of disappearing completely from the world after I die still scares me, but I prefer to keep that fear a part of me rather than accept something which I do not believe.
That is my perspective. Some people would not be able to consider that as a possible truth. They would prefer to have answers which may be wrong (or right) and live with no reassurance apart from their faith.
It is safe not to question.
“New ideas are always criticized – not because an idea lacks merit, but because it might turn out to be workable, which would threaten the reputations of many people whose opinions conflict with it. Some people may lose their jobs.” –Physicist, requested anonymity
ReplyDeleteI agree with Jillian’s idea that people sometimes have difficulties to accept new ideas because these ideas may threaten the old concepts. For example, when the idea that the Earth is round came up in ancient Greece, nobody believed it because they had had the concept that the Earth is flat in their mind for a long time. They thought that the Earth was a large flat ground, so that they could walk and build their houses on it. Most of the people at that time thought that this idea was unbelievable, and nobody really demonstrated it. The first time that this idea was proved was when Ferdinand Magellan and his fleet travelled around the globe. This was the first solid evidence to convince people that the Earth is round. This example demonstrates that people are not likely to accept new ideas that are against their previous knowledge. They do not like the feeling to be questioned, or they are afraid of the changes in their lives due to the new ideas.
They may concern that the new ideas would break the comfort zone that they get used to, and do not want to risk their lives out of the comfort zone. People do not speak up their thoughts can be viewed as a way to stay in their comfort zone. If they don’t speak up, nothing would happen; if they do speak up, they need to take the risk of others’ responses. However, if people always stay in their comfort zone, they will never learn many things from the outside.
Certainty is not always good for people’s process of learning, and being uncertain can push people forward. Courage is the essential part to acknowledge the uncertainty. Uncertainty allows people to discover more perspectives in their lives, and whether they have the ability to question their own answers. The best way to keep people going forward is to absorb new ideas from their surroundings, and connect them with themselves.
“Science advances funeral by funeral.” -Planck(?)
ReplyDeleteI agree with what Dorjee has commented on about this quote although I have a different take on it. I think that the term funeral is referring to the passing of old ideas to make room for new ones. Imagine if nobody ever died then the world would be so full of humans and animals that there would be no room for anymore. With the ideas of science as one idea becomes topped by a new more advanced version of it, it is thrown away. Funerals are sad but they allow closure and open up new horizons for new ideas and creations. If scientists had continued thinking that the sun orbits the earth, we would probably not have a satellite passing out of the galaxy right now. Without a funeral new ideas cannot be formed because old ideas would be holding them back.
“I can live with doubt and uncertainty and not knowing. I think it is much more interesting to live not knowing than to have answers that might be wrong.”
ReplyDelete- Richard Feynman
I can try to augment Karen's answer, but as far as answers go it is quite exhaustive. I agree with her agreement of the quote. I too believe that it is far more interesting to lead a life based on uncertainties than untruths. The example of religion is a very good one. It seems that more and more often (or maybe I’m just realizing it), people are drawing the line between atheism and agnosticism; an important distinction when discussing uncertainty and disbelief in religion. I pretty much agree with everything Karen said. Until the last sentence. I’m curious as to what train of thought, especially one which stems from such an endlessly questioning philosophy (essentially, it is better to continue questioning than to settle on a wrong answer), led to the conclusion that “it is safe not to question”. Safe not to question? I may have misunderstood, but isn’t this way of thinking based on never settling for a wrong answer? Isn’t this attitude intended to lead the knower (or prospective knower) to continue searching for possibilities? I don’t believe that Feynman meant for humans of this uncertain persuasion to remain forever in the dark about all things not set in stone, but rather that they should not settle for the first, or second (or third, for that matter) answer that comes their way. That they should question. To doubt is to question the truth or fact of something. Feynman thinks it is better to doubt (aka question) than to accept a wrong answer - the product of unquestioned belief. I know I’m going to keep questioning. I hope you all do to. If not, well...
...let’s agree to disagree.
My response to Elizabeth-
ReplyDeleteI agree with Elizabeth’s analysis that science can be interpreted in many different ways by many people, just like art. The theories she used to support her statement are pretty straightforward, but I think art relates to science more by how these theories are viewed as right and wrong, and not which other theories could be used to refute them. I can disagree with the initial statement because I think that a theory or idea in the field of science can be more easily supported by data than art, and in retrospect it is easier to disprove a theory or idea about science than art. I related the statement that “scientific discovery is an irrational act” to the science labs I have done. The first time a scientist is trying to prove their theory it’s hard to know what to expect, and this is an irrational action. Why do something you don’t understand? This question also relates to art like Elizabeth pointed out. New styles of artwork are similar to scientific discoveries because at first it can be hard to understand the piece, and this can be hard to except. I do not entirely understand what Rubbia is saying when she says “it’s an intuition which turns out to be reality at the end of it”. I read this as an immediate understanding turns out to be true in the end. If this is what she is saying then I disagree because many things can be uncertain. I do agree with Elizabeth when she said that a theory or piece or artwork can be the same, but what people take away from it can be different.
“The voyage of discovery lies not in seeking new horizons, but in seeing with new eyes.” ——Marcel Proust
ReplyDeleteResponse to Tina’s post.
I agree with the way Tina has analyzed this post. When I first read it, one of the points my mind flew to was also math. The beauty of math isn’t solving the problem but all the different ways a problem can be solved. It is easy to find the answer but not easy to find three different ways to find the answer. However, I regarded it more as the way one situation can teach us many different things. For example, in a case of thievery, we can learn about sympathy, hate, technique, understanding, desperation and forgiveness. Depending on a person’s attitude, he/she will look at the situation differently. However, even if a person feels a particular way about the situation, seeing it from many different sides can deepen their understanding and perhaps change their initial evaluation. I think Proust’s message can also be construed as encouraging people to put themselves in another's shoes. I especially noted that Proust did not specify whether the discovery had a positive or negative effect on a person. Therefore; looking at something with new eyes can be both positive and negative.
Also, a person needs to be tolerant to different ideas and different points of view in order to truly discover. That also opens up a person’s ability to admit that they are not the center of the universe.
In her second paragraph, Tina talked about how looking towards a situation (albeit a new one) with a different attitude changed how she felt about it. In this case, she was seeing a new horizon with different eyes. I feel this was a good example that proves the quote.
I also think that Tina touches on an interesting point that I would like to go deeper into. When Proust claimed that the voyage of discovery lies in seeing with new eyes and not in seeking new horizons, it is implied that we must see the same horizon with different eyes; that process is what will lead us to discovery. However, Tina claimed that “ new horizons can be the constantly changing facts around me.” From this, I came to the conclusion that horizons are always changing, even if the changes are infinitely small and/or occur in one billionth of a second. Therefore, we can never regard the same horizon twice. We can regard almost identical horizons but never the same ones. There lies the fault in Proust’s quote; we can never see the same horizon twice.