Bertrand Russell wrote History of Western Philosophy during
World War II. He covers every important philosopher and some non-philosophers
from the Greeks up to his time. One of the more interesting chapters is The Rise
of Science in the 17th century. He points out that before that time,
the great philosophers of the Middle Ages like Aquinas or Averroes or Erasmus could
have conversed with Aristotle and Plato. The language barriers would have to be
overcome, but conceptually they were still on the same level. After Copernicus,
Kepler, Galileo and Newton,
when philosophy and science diverged, the gap widened, and the ancients would
have been clueless about things that are now taught in elementary school.
Bold hypotheses are made, usually with no evidence. When
challenged, the discussion turns to the openness of someone’s mind, how they
laughed at Columbus
and other useless statements. If the hypothesis is challenged, the response is
to defend the right to state a hypothesis. If the evidence or lack of it is
challenged, the challenger is accused of any number of thought crimes. If an
attempt is made to explain the scientific method, science itself is attacked for
being an entrenched bureaucracy of gatekeepers uninterested in any original
ideas.
All of us were born into the world that has already absorbed
the way of thinking that we call “modern”. Russell, Wittgenstein and Popper
worked this out for us. They did it so well that we don’t bother discussing
their arguments anymore. Just like we don’t need to understand Tusi’s couple or
the stellar parallax to explain how we know the earth revolves around the sun
we don’t need to regurgitate a definition of critical rationalism. Everything
is fine until someone breaks the rule that you can have an idea but you need
some evidence if you want others to go along with it.
Either part of that rule could be broken. Encouraging
innovation is important. Allowing people to explore crazy ideas can be useful.
Even when someone is wrong, we don’t want to suppress their creativity. Part of
that encouragement of creativity should also include the hard work of bringing
an idea to fruition. An idea alone does not have much value.
With so many important inventions in the last couple
centuries, we have come to put a lot of emphasis on the idea people. It’s
easier to remember that brilliant breakthroughs lead to progress than it is to
remember all the testing, all the mistakes, all the tedious gathering of data
that went into making that breakthrough a reality. Too much hero worship and
not enough acknowledgment of the grunt work in my opinion. Ideas and innovation
should be encouraged, but a crazy idea should still be called crazy and
whatever other judgments between the extremes of crazy and brilliant should be
considered, based on evidence.
Hi, I am from Australia.
ReplyDeleteWhat is a crazy idea?
Please find a completely different Understanding of Reality via these references - most of which are about science and/or scientism
www.adidam.org/teaching/aletheon/truth-science.aspx
www.adidam.org/teaching/gnosticon/universal-scientism.aspx
http://global.adidam.org/truth-book/true-spiritual-practice-3.html
www.dabase.org/Reality_Itself_Is_Not_In_The_Middle.htm
www.dabase.org/up-1-7.htm
http://spiralledlight.wordpress.com/2010/08/24/4068
www.aboutadidam.org/lesser_alternatives/scientific_materialism/index.html
Wow, anonymous, that is some major spam. Some of your links don't even work. If you're going to spam people, you should learn how to do it. Even in my worst days of believing all sorts of garbage, I wouldn't have fallen for any of what you linked. It is made up words, linked to sciencey sounding words to give them credibility. I don't know how anyone can sit down and write that stuff without laughing themselves to death.
ReplyDelete