Ray of light splashed my body as I lay on my back
facing the sky. The heat of the summer day hugged my body, while a ponderosa
pine towered over me but far enough away to not leave me in shadow. Its
branches scratched the heavens.
Feeling a wave of fatigue, I rolled onto my side and found a bee resting on the tip of my cup. The front half of its body was dipped toward the liquid within. I could have shooed it away, but its tiny movements enchanted me.
Haldane had once said that insects tend to avoid water because its force could prevent them from freedom and perhaps push them toward death. I found his statement to be interesting because I understood his logic and because it is something that I have witnessed numerous times. But yet, as I said in my opening two paragraphs, I once witnessed a bee taking a drink of liquid from my cup. Because of my observation, I have a tendency to refute that claim because it was not universal with regards to my case.
On the contrary though, how I do I know that the bee was drinking water from my cup? What if it was just storing water for some other use? What if insects don’t drink water at all? What if we just think they drink water because we (humans) do (and so what if science backs up the water drinking thing?)? I find it interesting that I had a tendency to refute these claims because they do not match up to my belief system. I also find it interesting how I had a tendency to think that what he said was universal even though he did not explicitly claim that what he said was “true”.
Now, as I change thoughts, I remember this picture I had once seen. It depicts brain cells and the universe looking very similar to one another. I remember reading on the internet somewhere (perhaps a Facebook comment?) – a while ago – about how that “proves” the existence of God because of how similar they look. Why do some people need validation for their faith in God and for any belief system in general? Is it part of our biology to make and defend arguments? Perhaps another part of it is that people are attempting to change the cultural norm – Perhaps they are trying to sway more people to believe in what they believe in because they won’t be satisfied with a “truth” unless the entire world believes in it. And that makes me wonder something: Would something be considered “true” if every single subculture believed in something the same way? Would something be considered “true” if every single person/creature/organism in the whole entire outer space believed in it? Does “truth” even exist? Or is the concept “truth” something constructed by humans and the society in which we live?
Switching gears a little, I want to focus on Atkins’ discussion of change. When we look to persuade other people, such as with what we write, we are changing something within our readers’ minds. Atkins had said that when something is changed in science and within our opinions, something has to be destroyed in order for that to happen. With reference to our past discussions, I cannot help but think that all of this ties to persuasion, interpretation and uncertainties.
If I were to elaborate I suppose I would sort of repeat my response to Anjeli’s reply in my last blog post. However, here I’ll say a little bit more to bring my response to her in context to this topic: When a person reads something and interprets it within their mind, they can either accept the information or not. When they accept the information, it builds onto what they already know or it totally reconstructs what they already know. At first I didn’t think of the idea of something being destroyed in order for that knowledge shaping to take place, but I suppose it makes sense. In order for the reader to be persuaded by what they read, something that they knew previously had to be destroyed to better fit some other knowledge they currently have in relation to that topic.
To give a visual, the one thing going through my mind right now are puzzle pieces: Two thoughts fit together perfectly to form a piece of knowledge. And if an outside piece (or thought) mutates one of those two pieces, the corresponding partner may no longer fit and thus may fade away. As a result, the outside piece and the mutated piece may become one entity now in order to form another piece of knowledge.
This discussion about rhetoric is pretty similar to science – Theories get reshaped constantly when new evidence either conflicts or reinforces them. Theories, like human knowledge, is alive and breathing – It is never absolute.
Feeling a wave of fatigue, I rolled onto my side and found a bee resting on the tip of my cup. The front half of its body was dipped toward the liquid within. I could have shooed it away, but its tiny movements enchanted me.
Haldane had once said that insects tend to avoid water because its force could prevent them from freedom and perhaps push them toward death. I found his statement to be interesting because I understood his logic and because it is something that I have witnessed numerous times. But yet, as I said in my opening two paragraphs, I once witnessed a bee taking a drink of liquid from my cup. Because of my observation, I have a tendency to refute that claim because it was not universal with regards to my case.
On the contrary though, how I do I know that the bee was drinking water from my cup? What if it was just storing water for some other use? What if insects don’t drink water at all? What if we just think they drink water because we (humans) do (and so what if science backs up the water drinking thing?)? I find it interesting that I had a tendency to refute these claims because they do not match up to my belief system. I also find it interesting how I had a tendency to think that what he said was universal even though he did not explicitly claim that what he said was “true”.
Now, as I change thoughts, I remember this picture I had once seen. It depicts brain cells and the universe looking very similar to one another. I remember reading on the internet somewhere (perhaps a Facebook comment?) – a while ago – about how that “proves” the existence of God because of how similar they look. Why do some people need validation for their faith in God and for any belief system in general? Is it part of our biology to make and defend arguments? Perhaps another part of it is that people are attempting to change the cultural norm – Perhaps they are trying to sway more people to believe in what they believe in because they won’t be satisfied with a “truth” unless the entire world believes in it. And that makes me wonder something: Would something be considered “true” if every single subculture believed in something the same way? Would something be considered “true” if every single person/creature/organism in the whole entire outer space believed in it? Does “truth” even exist? Or is the concept “truth” something constructed by humans and the society in which we live?
Switching gears a little, I want to focus on Atkins’ discussion of change. When we look to persuade other people, such as with what we write, we are changing something within our readers’ minds. Atkins had said that when something is changed in science and within our opinions, something has to be destroyed in order for that to happen. With reference to our past discussions, I cannot help but think that all of this ties to persuasion, interpretation and uncertainties.
If I were to elaborate I suppose I would sort of repeat my response to Anjeli’s reply in my last blog post. However, here I’ll say a little bit more to bring my response to her in context to this topic: When a person reads something and interprets it within their mind, they can either accept the information or not. When they accept the information, it builds onto what they already know or it totally reconstructs what they already know. At first I didn’t think of the idea of something being destroyed in order for that knowledge shaping to take place, but I suppose it makes sense. In order for the reader to be persuaded by what they read, something that they knew previously had to be destroyed to better fit some other knowledge they currently have in relation to that topic.
To give a visual, the one thing going through my mind right now are puzzle pieces: Two thoughts fit together perfectly to form a piece of knowledge. And if an outside piece (or thought) mutates one of those two pieces, the corresponding partner may no longer fit and thus may fade away. As a result, the outside piece and the mutated piece may become one entity now in order to form another piece of knowledge.
This discussion about rhetoric is pretty similar to science – Theories get reshaped constantly when new evidence either conflicts or reinforces them. Theories, like human knowledge, is alive and breathing – It is never absolute.
Kelly, there’s a lot going on in this post. First off, I can relate to your opening comments. I was drinking something the other night and noticed a small bug in the liquid that wasn’t moving or struggling. I took my time moving it around the glass so that I could fish it out with my finger. I was about to flick it away into the great beyond of my friend’s living room when it suddenly started crawling. It moved across my hand as it shed the beer (what a rebirth!), slowly gaining speed. After about a minute it was moving at what appeared to be a comfortable speed, and eventually flew away. For me, the bug slowly walking off its weighted stupor was confirmation of what we had just read – but as you note, I made a decision to interpret what I was seeing as validation for Haldane’s article.
ReplyDeleteWhen you get into ideas about Truth and truth and belief, you’re grappling with some pretty heavy and fundamental epistemological questions. I think our discussions early in the semester circled around the inability to conclusively identify Truth, a worry that can turn into a fixation (because after all, these are important questions) and derail our science writing before we even get to the writing. Doug has made a few comments about settling (in this field) for what counts as “true enough” and working with what we have.
I like your ideas about the brain and thought, building on something Atkins doesn’t quite develop. I’m not sure how I feel about old frameworks being destroyed in the brain. Who’s to say that those puzzle pieces fade and aren’t simply cached somehow, as thoughts/ideas on reserve for other occasions/purposes? I wonder if thoughts can really be “destroyed” in a fully functional brain. As a side note, it’s interesting that we’re developing metaphors to see how well they match a complex topic. At any rate, thanks for bringing up these ideas.
Liam
Kelly,
ReplyDeleteLet's talk about truth. Seconding Liam, you are asking some gigantic questions. Which is fantastic! Shying away from the big ones only facilitates ignorance. You asked this: "Does “truth” even exist? Or is the concept “truth” something constructed by humans and the society in which we live?" You have nicely encapsulated what I would say the majority of human individuals ask themselves daily, on the deepest levels. I make no claims to answer those questions in the blog post comment, but perhaps I can put in my two cents, and encourage your own thought process.
I believe there is truth in the universe. For example, the ratio between electric energy and gravity. That is a standard, unchanging, truth. Scientists do not know why the ratio is at that proportion, but it happens to be so, quite unchanging. Now, you could argue, similar to your above statements/questions that the scientists perhaps measured it wrong, or assumed where they should not have. "What if insects don't drink water at all?" And you can keep questioning, until you believe nothing is stable in the world.
Or, you can devote yourself to seeking out truth in specific areas. Not everything will be known by you upon your exit from this life on earth, but it is possible to know *some* things. My advice to you: decide what you want to know. Maybe it's a person. Maybe it's a theory, an academic enterprise, a virtue. Push your thought process beyond your mind and into your soul. What is truth to you?
Anjeli