Former Boston Globe science columnist and college prof. Chet Raymo has written a stirring ode to the value of ignorance in his latest Science Musings. Pascal, Priestly and Popper -- he covers them all. What he's done is put his finger on a counter-intuitive definition of science, and what a definition it is:
The purpose of science -- and indeed all education -- is to arrive at a state of ignorance, but an ignorance that is aware of itself.
One more excerpt should be enough to convince you to read the whole thing.
As long as our answers to these questions invoked the gods -- as they did for thousands of years -- no reliable public knowledge was possible. Only when a few curious people said "I don't know" did science begin. Admission of ignorance is a prerequisite of scientific discovery, and by the same token, the more we learn, the more we are aware of what we do not know.
- Log in to post comments
More like this
As expected, the Laden/Myers tag team utterly crushed the Nisbet/Mooney team. The decision was unanimous. Only a few crazy people might have found the framers at all persuasive. (It helps, too, that Nisbet/Mooney are on a plane flying away and won't be able to get out their side of the story until…
Former science columnist turned blogger and all-round wise old guy Chet Raymo writes on his blog today that his Irish neighbors don't understand what's going on in America when it comes to the ascendancy of religiosity. I don't have an answer, but his question suggests a possible answer to a…
Shorter Deepak: "Richard Dawkins didn't endorse my quantum bullshit, therefore The Magic of Reality sucks!"
Deepak Chopra actually sounds quite upset — his review of the book reads more like the indignant squawk of a charlatan furious that the presence of a skeptic might cut into his take. It's…
PvM, in The Panda's Thumb: Laudan, demarcation and the vacuity of Intelligent design, has done a masterful job of pointing out that a favourite quotemine source of the Intelligent Design crowd, Larry Laudan, doesn't say what they say he says, quelle surprise. The issue is epistemological naturalism…
I'm glad you've picked up on Raymo's piece. To extend or build on his clear headed view of science, I'd add that ignorance manifests itself in the form of questions. The point of the knowledge enterprise is to equip us to ask ever more pointed questions. What's special about modern science is that it cultivates the art of framing questions in a way that permits experience and experiment to contribute to the answers.
"The purpose of science -- and indeed all education -- is to arrive at a state of ignorance, but an ignorance that is aware of itself."
That statement just makes me feel stupid not ignorant: I wish I would have said it. Now I have to go read the whole thing. Thanks.
Just got back: good read, sounds more philosophical than scientific, but nothing wrong with that.