Sunday, June 7, 2009

We Don't Know Jack

In the early days of music, before the origins of copyright laws, composers often borrowed snippets of music from each other. These were usually referred to as variations on a theme. One composer would pen a concerto or symphony and another one would take portions of the original score and improvise with it. Of course, in this modern day, this tact often leads to a lawsuit!

I bring this up because I'm going to employ this vehicle in this post. My variation on a theme is taken from our good friend Forest Wisdom and his Friday blog entry, Things I think about at 3:00 AM, #228.
Sometimes I wonder, are we really more "advanced" than many of the other creatures that inhabit this planet with us?:

"Unlike humans, wild creatures strive for survival and die without complaint or expectation of anything better." --Flandrum Hill
In the comments section, I offered the following:
How do we really know if other species "die without complaint or expectation"? Since we don't speak their language nor understand very much about the complexities of their worlds, they may complain just as loudly as we do and we simply don't realize it.
This set me to thinking about the concept of knowledge. What is it that we humans know for sure?

The more I pondered this question, the more I realized that we don't know jack! We know next to nothing about the complex realities of any species not our own and, in fact, we still don't really understand the world of humans either. If we did, there would be no need for laws, wars, poverty, ecological destruction or divorce. We'd live in a world of milk and honey, idling our days away until our eventual deaths.

Regardless of all of our so-called technological advances, we still don't know the answers to any of the major questions of life.
  1. Where did we come from and why are we here?
  2. Where do we end up and in what form, if any?
  3. Is there a supernatural entity or being and, if so, does it care one iota about you or me?
  4. What is the meaning, if any, of life?
  5. Why can't the Chicago Cubs win it all?
To be certain, we have all sorts of pet theories -- science, religion and philosophy.

Science is supposedly about studying the world around us and creating replicable experiments and properties to explain various phenomena. When such elements are created that can be replicated several times over, we call the results facts. But, over the course of history, known facts keep changing.

Humankind once knew that the earth was flat. It was an accepted fact. However, as we gained new information and insight, we decided that this incontrovertible fact was wrong. So, we created a new fact to fit with what we knew.

And this is why science will always be about theories, not fact. There is no way we will ever have all the available information because such information is simply too broad and vast. Consequently, we'll never be at the place in which we can take into account each and every variable to arrive at the core facts of the matter.

Like science, religion doesn't deal with facts either. It doesn't even deal in theory, only speculation and conjecture. While religious adherents claim to know, each is just as frightened and anxious about the unknown as anyone else. Besides, since said adherents suffer from the same deficiency of not being able to account for each and every variable, they too can't get at the core of the truth.

Unlike science or religion, philosophy doesn't pretend to know. It's merely a more rigidly constructed form of speculation and conjecture. Philosophers, by and large, are more concerned with posing questions, not providing definitive answers.

So, the most I think that we can say about the human species is that we're the one who thinks we know a helluva lot more than we actually do. We talk a good game about knowledge and fact when, in actuality, we understand little of either.

Of course, I realize that some of you will now ask the most penetrating question: Taoist, how do you know that what we think we know is not really knowing at all?

And the answer, my dear friends, is quite simple -- I don't know...

...which only proves my point.

5 comments:

  1. “And this is why science will always be about theories, not fact.”
    Agreed. I don’t care how many peer-reviewed studies are involved, science takes as much faith as religion to swallow.

    I used to think that at least I knew who I was. But you can’t be a woman, experience pregnancy a few times and reach middle age without admitting that fluctuating hormones can change personality on a dime. If I don’t know who I am, then how can I know anything else for sure.

    I may know how I’ve acted in the past, but can only guess I’ll act similarly in similar circumstances in the future. At any moment, any of us can have a change of heart that would make our future actions unpredictable.

    What would happen if we all suddenly stopped pretending we know anything for sure? Would it create chaos or would truth finally feel safe enough to come out of the shadows and reveal itself?

    Very thought provoking post RT.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Flandrumhill,
    Yes, science is a religion all it's own. It has completely different tenets, but we believe it on the faith that it is true.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I suppose it depends upon how one defines "religion." Since, in my view (though it wasn't always so that I thought this way), "religion" is fabricated and utterly empirically unverifiable belief systems (of whatever label), to me, a truly scientific way of approaching the world is what remains in the absence of religion. And yes, I suppose "faith"--in the sense of belief--is still necessary, but I'm not sure that just believing in something makes it one's "relgion." Would you say that science, as relgion, has the trappings of "superstition"? If you would, then okay, to you science is another religion. But I view science as one means to destroy delusions and superstitions...(and I might add that's all to the good as far as I am concerned). Of course, there are also things that are science falsely so-called. (Creationism comes to mind as just one example.)

    Anyway, just a couple of cents (probably all thy're worth) offered here from the peanut gallery.

    Peace to all

    ReplyDelete
  4. Forest,
    I think what I'm trying to get at is that accepting science as fact is a form of belief. We believe that if a certain experiment or formulation can be replicated several times, then it proves that something is real and true. Yet, many of the things we've proven beyond a shadow of a doubt have later been disproved (usually when we have gained further information).

    A lot of science is based on mathematical computations and the very numbers used to work out these formulas are human constructs that may or may not reflect ultimate reality. If the latter, then science is flawed from the get go and will only provide us with a pale facsimile of what we crave.

    In the end, whatever we believe (religion, science, philosophy, or the tooth fairy) is built upon the edifice of faith that it comes the closest to representing reality.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I agree with FW's comments here. I think if you talk to any true scientist, which is some-one who is truly passionate about learning and the natural world, they will tell you that there are no truths, just a continaul process of asserting and disputing theories. Science's involvement in the capitalist system means that distortions, claims of truth and mercenary motives have brought in its religious-like problems.

    Just another 2cents worth from the peanut gallery :)

    ReplyDelete

Comments are unmoderated, so you can write whatever you want.