Wednesday, October 12, 2011
She Blinded Me With Science
For your first post in our consideration of Experimental Science as a way of knowing, please transcribe your quotation snippet, then provide a close reading of the text. Patiently follow your ideas to their ends, and embrace multiplicity of meaning. For Tuesday, please choose a classmate's post, and respond to her reading with your own analysis, both of the text she provides and of her close reading. Critique, refute, reinforce, explore. Only one response per Friday post, please; thus each point will have a counterpoint.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
"Every problem lacks a solution. None of us unties the Gordian knot; all of us either give up or we sever it. We let our emotions do violence to our intelligence through hasty decisions, and we do this either because of a tiredness of thinking, or because of a timidity to reach conclusions, or because of the absurd necessity to find easy answers, or because of a social impulse to get in touch with humanity and with life. Because we can never know all of the facts about a question, we can never answer it. We lack sufficient data to arrive at the truth, and the intellectual processes that will exhaust the interpretation of that data. (Fernando Pessoa, The Book of Disquiet)
ReplyDeleteThis quote is indeed a long and complicated statement. But the more one analyzes the meanings of each sentence, the more one can truly understand the lack of human commitment to real knowledge.
The first part of this quote describes the fact that "every problem lacks a solution." Every problem has the potential for a solution, but many have not gotten to that point. Pessoa compares this to the Gordian knot. There is a legend from the the 16th century in which Gordias, King of Gordium, tied a complex knot, and predicted that whoever could untie it would become the ruler of Asia. But Alexander the Great cut this knot with a sword. So Alexander the Great and every single one of us give up or "sever" the complications in life.
Pessoa continues on to explain that humans have a tendency to let certain emotions take over their decision making processes. We tend to resort to easy resolutions if we are tired of thinking critically or afraid of reaching conclusions. I have at times, had the desire to find easy answers to difficult questions. But difficult questions require deep thought and inquiry.
By the end of the passage it is said that, "because we can never know all the facts about the question, we can never answer it." This is true because all current facts have been created only by human observation and opinion. Do we really know what we know? When one realizes that nothing can really be truly accurate, there is a lack of motivation in answering questions with the best possible support. The universe is filled with unanswered questions that are far beyond our intellectual capacity. "We lack sufficient data to arrive at the truth," explains Pessoa. There has been a lack of effort in arriving to the truth, especially when it comes to our history. Our carelessness in bringing complete and well thought out explanations to the world, prevents us from reaching the truth.
“Ironic as it sounds, inaccuracy is the central assumption of science. No scientific conjecture or hypothesis or theory or statement is 100% accurate. Only the “empty” tautologies of math and logic enjoy that status. Inaccuracy pervades science. The goal of science is to remove as much inaccuracy of description as possible, as much as experimental error and good guesswork and “physical” laws permit.” (Bart Kosko, Fuzzy Thinking: The New Science of Fuzzy Logic. New York: Hyperion, 1993, 86).
ReplyDeleteI believe that this quote is very true in many aspects. The author of this quote believes that no form of science can ever be accurate. Generally, one looks to the accuracy of science to depend on as a way to validate one’s “knowing”. However, Mr. Kosko believes that although science tries to be as accurate as possible, it can never achieve that because of all of the error that goes into it.
“No scientific conjecture or hypothesis or theory or statement is 100% accurate.” This is something that I can agree with. I believe that saying something is 100%, is too definite because how can we, as humans, be so sure that something is 100%? What if we think something is 100%, but in reality, there is much more to the story; sometimes even too deep to ever get knowledge of.
The author believes that math and logic are “empty” tautologies. Firstly, I would categorize science as both math and logic, therefore making it an empty tautology as well. When I looked up the word “tautology”, I found that it meant that information or ideas were repeated over and over unnecessarily. Basically, the author believes that science simply repeats itself over and over so that it can call itself 100% accurate. When scientists perform an experiment, they never do it once. They do it over and over hoping for the same result. When the results are similar, they simply conclude it to be accurate. The author of this quote refutes this idea of accuracy.
“Inaccuracy pervades science.” The word ‘pervade’ means to spread throughout or to be apparent in something. Simply enough, this small sentence also means that inaccuracy is all throughout science. Every theory, hypothesis, or statement we make is filled with inaccuracy due to many variables. I think this is mostly due to the fact that we are all humans, and humans are the farthest thing from perfect. We make mistakes too. These three words are off on its own sentence on purpose to make its point. The main point of this entire quote is that anything in science is never completely accurate.
“The goal of science is to remove as much inaccuracy of description as possible, as much as experimental error and good guesswork and “physical” laws permit.” The author does recognize that science tries to serve as a form of accuracy. He does see that science makes an effort to get rid of much human and experimental data, but the point is that science can never be accurate. The goal of science is to provide an explanation for things that happen. However, with all the mathematics and logic that is entailed into science, there must be experiments to prove that the science is correct. In biology, we learned that if an experiment has more than 5% of human error, then one cannot claim it to be accurate. Scientists try to remove as much of this human error as possible, but there will always be some sort of error. This is why no science can ever be accurate. We can never count on anything for accuracy; not on science, not on what our parents tell us, not on our own personal experiences. We all just have to accept the fact that we may never know anything accurately, but we can try to get as close as we can.
“It is the theory which decides what can be observed.” - Albert Einstein
ReplyDeleteIt is the theory which decides what can be observed.
It is an idea or thought that decides what can be observed.
It is the idea or thought that determines what can be looked at and taken notes on.
It is the theory which decides what can be observed. This means that a theory is what decides if something is observed or not, not necessarily saying that the only things that have theories are observed. The quote is saying that things can be observed if there is something trying to be figured out or proven. Theories are meant to be tested and proven either correct or incorrect and what is recorded or witnessed from the test would be observation. What is observed, or what is witnessed and recorded, is based on the theory.
SaskiaTOK was unable to post hers in the library and first class was down, so she wrote:
ReplyDeleteIn the piece of writing given to me, Marcel Proust states, “The voyage of discovery lies not in seeking new horizons, but in seeing with new eyes.” This quote can be looked at in several ways, the way one understands the quote will thus push them to agree or disagree with what the author is saying. In my view, Proust is voicing his outlook on the way one may discover new and different things in life. He states that the way to expand your mind and find out new things is to look at them from a different point of view. Instead of coming up with one sole opinion or thought for something, and then moving on to discovering new things, one must stay on a subject and look at it from a different perspective. In other words, in order to learn and grow, one needs to set aside their bias and be able to interchange ways of thinking. To say that you truly know, and unmistakably understand a subject, you need to have looked at it in more than one way.
In order to voice my opinion more clearly, let me use an example. Say people were discussing the idea of vegetarianism, and one of the two is discussing the poor and helpless animals, while the other discusses the fact that plants are living as well. Both of them have very opposing views on the subject and refuse to listen to one another. In order to comprehend where the other person is coming from, though, they must leave their bias opinions aside and take a minute to understand another aspect. The vegetarian will ask the carnivore how plants are living, and the carnivore will explain the plethora of different experiments done to test that hypothesis. Then, the carnivore will ask of the vegetarian why animals are more important than plants, and the vegetarian will state their view on the topic. Ultimately, to reach a common ground, and a mutual understanding on the topic, both have to step aside and think of another way to look at vegetarianism as a whole. Granted, that example was not the only one that people can argue, and there are endless amounts of areas where this quote can be applied, be it personally or on a greater scale.
Proust plainly states that discovery is a “voyage,” meaning that it is not necessarily an area that one will ever be able to reach. There will always be more to learn and understand, and discovery is not a so much a final destination, but rather a vague aim or goal. One must be willing to discover and not let personal views affect what they learn and how they see things. One must always keep in mind that knowing should not be all they search for on the path to discovery. They must be prepared to understand and accept that not everything has one meaning, and that common ground will not always be reached when looking at opposing views. To be willing to discover and learn means to be ready to accept new ways of knowing, and to let yourself grow, in your mind and as a person.
“If what we regard as real depends on our theory, how can we make reality the basis of our philosophy?… But we cannot distinguish what is real about the universe without a theory…it makes no sense to ask if it corresponds to reality, because we do not know what reality is independent of a theory.” Stephen Hawking
ReplyDeleteThis is a very interesting quote, which is basically saying that there is no such things as reality whatsoever without a theory. Now, it would be very narrow minded and naïve to say that the world we live in is not real or is an illusion, because there has been many mathematical calculations about everything around us and there has been proof to provide explanation about the world we live in. This concept is called positivism, which by definition is the philosophical system that holds that every rationally justifiable assertion can be scientifically verified or is capable of logical or mathematical proof, and that therefore reject metaphysics and theism. This concept basically contradicts the quote by saying that if something can be proved scientifically, it is to be considered as REAL. But not all humans have to have proof to consider something as real, that is why we have religions and believes, if one’s mind and conscious believe something is true to them, then it is real but that only goes for the person who believes that.
Also what we (western culture) think or perceive as real is very different to what other people think is real. For example take the Buddhist culture, in their teachings of reality they state that “A is not A, therefore A is called A” this very a contradictory statement, it is called the logic of not. This is what we take as paradoxical but that is what they see as real and secondly, “Nirvana” which is the state of being free from all. So if you have nothing, and no valuable possession at all, your reality will be the nothing, so you will not wish for anything else. So these are completely opposite from what the western perceive as real, so for them real is the unreal and the inexistent. For some us real has to be backed up by a scientific proof. For others, real is just a simple belief and faith.
“It is through science that we prove, but through intuition that we discover.” –H. Poincare
ReplyDeleteIn the first part of this quote, I stopped to think about the first part, “through science we prove”. And then I thought that in most sciences classes there are some different types of scientific laws that are created because they have been proven to work. I also thought of the use of using science to prove facts in history, because when going to ancient artifacts, the historians also have to bring along scientific tools that determine the time period of the piece. However, not all things that are proven are only proven through science. I don’t think that this statement fits well for every subject; therefore there are other ways in which we can prove.
The second part of he quote, “through intuition that we discover”, made me think a lot too about how I could completely agree with that in my life personally. It reminded me of a time when I was younger, and I decided to go into the woods because I was extremely interested as to what was there. And I remember just being amazed by the mysterious atmosphere of the woods near my house; also going in there helped me overcome the idea that the woods are scary. However, like the first part of the quote, I can say that there are also other ways in which we discover, whether it’s on accident or based on instinct.
"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 even lose their jobs."- Physicist, request anonymity
ReplyDeleteThis quote is self explanatory. I agree fully with this quote, and that people always criticized new ideas. Even the people who call themselves "open-minded" may not have the ability to always restrain from criticizing a new ideas. It is human nature to love "the norm". When little kids, one would ask lots of questions as to why things are the way they are and it is then that we are told stories that were passed on from generations to generations. When little, most don't have the power to go and test out the stories that they are told, one just assumes that it is right. As we become adults and have grounded those theories into our minds, it is hard to approach a new theory without criticism. What if someone were so say that the Earth is actually square? the person listening to this would automatically reject this idea because we were taught that the world is round because science told us so. But what if all things science were just myths?
"The only means of strengthening one's intellect is to make up one's mind about nothing -- to let the mind be a thoroughfare for all thoughts. Not a select party." - John Keats
ReplyDeleteI think this quote is both straightforward in its meaning and somewhat unrealistic in its assumption. Keats's ultimate goal, as he states, is the strengthening of one's intellect, something with which many humans occupy themselves for much of their lives. Keats makes a bold statement: there is one way and one way only to accomplish this. He says this in what I see as two parts: to make up one's mind about nothing, and to let the mind be a thoroughfare for all thoughts. They are one and the same in his mind, but are still different. Ideally, one would do just what he suggests. One would come with no prejudice or opinion to new thought; instead one would listen objectively - that word again - to all perspectives, all ways of thought, all information, before forming an opinion. One needn't even form an opinion, necessarily - the newfound intellect could merely remain known.
As we know, objectivity is hard to come by and opinion is human. To make up one's mind about absolutely nothing is impossible. Opinion even often comes first, influencing one's perspective on all future new knowledge: one either condemns it or uses it to strengthen one's own thoughts - the very action Keats warned against, namely using the mind as a select party.
Yes, this tendency often gets in the way of communication, understanding, and the strengthening of intellect - but does it not account for the diversity of human thought? are we not human because we cannot sympathize with everything at once, because we have differing opinions, beliefs, ways of thought? Without this habit, would we not become merely holders of information?
Having established that opinion and preference and belief are unavoidable, it is true that openmindedness is preferable to closedmindedness, and that making an effort to set aside these inevitable pre-formed thoughts in order to broaden one's knowledge is desirable and productive. We must try to understand as much as possible by leaving our minds as open as we can.
In short, Keats's exclusive language stops me from agreeing totally with him. However, looking carefully at his statement, we must concur that we cannot know whether emptying one's mind of selection and judgment would indeed strengthen intellect. For all we know, it might. We do know that making an effort to keep an open mind and ASPIRING to the freedom he describes helps broaden our perspectives.
"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." -Richard Feynman
ReplyDeleteJut for starters, Richard Feynman is phenomenal!He was one of the leading scientist of his time, and quite frankly still is. He won a Nobel Peace Prize...in Physics!Talk about a genius.Back to the quote. Feynman prefers not knowing, yet he does not want to be wrong. That doesn't necessarily mean that he wants to be right either. Feynman understands that there are situations (and lots of them in his occupation) where one develops their own answers from their own experience and work. He does not recognize that as the final answer, but rather an idea. Along with his ideas are many other ideas to be shared. He is completely open to them, especially if he can live with uncertainty and doubt.When one does not know, they search and experience more things. When one is wrong, they end as wrong. The road of doubt leads to so much more! For instance, on a math quiz, someone are presented with a problem. Showing some type of work is much better than leaving it blank. The blank is definitely the wrong answer, but the shown work is an attempt to exercise the person's uncertainty.
Richard and I would have been best friends. I completely agree with this approach. I am certainly not the type to think that I am right or the time. Neither am I the type to disregard a new idea or argument that is against my own. It is a part of learning! Now, just because I am open to new ideas does not mean that my own established beliefs are built on a weak foundation. It simply means that I will listen to anything and everything else there is! This quote shows a fearless approach to thinking and working through situations. Leaving things open-ended is a good thing! That makes it all the more interesting, and it makes the "knower" more aware.
Richard Feynman, that is one brilliant quote you produced.
“If we will only allow that, as we progress, we remain unsure, we will leave opportunities for alternatives. We will not become enthusiastic for the fact, the knowledge, the absolute truth of the day, but remain always uncertain… In order to make progress, one must leave the door to the unknown ajar.” —Richard Feynman
ReplyDeleteFeynman is a famous physicist which discover a lot of theorem and calculation for physics. The quote above maybe simple but the hardest part is action and maintain the idea. If we only think things happened around us are just happened the way it supposed to be without wonder and questioning, we won’t find out its reality, instead, we remain who we are and just stop growing in many ways. To question and not knowing things makes us find out and realize the reality and the “truth” under the surface level, in additional, human beings get to grow and continue the process of evolution. Indeed, the ability of question is the most powerful weapon that all human have among all living organism; we think, we consider, we ask and we know much more than any animals on the earth.
Agree.
“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
ReplyDeleteFirstly, we need to determine what physical concepts are. Physical concepts are concepts like Newton’s law of Motion or Newton’s Law of Gravity. The first part of the quote is saying that concepts like gravity and objects in motions will remain in motion are ideas of the human mind. The external world is the outside world. The external world is often compared to or considered reality. Therefore, gravity is a concept created by the human mind and is not determined by reality.
Gravity is just an idea. Yes, it had been “proven”; if I release my pencil six inches above my desk, it will fall to the desk. Why? -Because of gravity. We believe this though, because we are told it is so-gravity is to blame.
This quote says that the ideas that humans rely on are actually just concepts that someone came up with; they actually have no weight in the ‘real world’. This means that everything we see as true and as being a guide for life is imagination and has no substance.
You might want to think about how creativity is involved in science!
ReplyDeleteAnd gravity is more than an idea - It is considered a universal physical law! There is a difference, however, between a law and a theory. A law describes what is happening and is usually based on a multitude of observations. Law of Gravity describes that objects fall--have you ever seen an object fall upwards, away from the earth. You can throw it up, but it will fall back down. Actually the law of gravity states that objects are attracted to each other, and it just seems that the smaller object falls down to the much larger object. It depends on your frame of reference. But there are mathematical formulas/rules, etc. that describe accurately the forces involved and which object will appear to fall towards the other. A theory, on the other hand, explains observations...and to date there is NO coherent explanation about why gravity happens.
Creativity can play a role here - think up reasons for why gravity happens and then devise experiments to test your reasons. Lots of creativity goes into proposing hypotheses from observations and into developing experiments that will test those hypotheses.
I'm loving the blog!
MamaNunes
I agree with MamaNunes. If we really think about it, creativity is involved with almost anything we do and any choice we make. We are constantly using creativity to come up with new innovations. Our minds cannot control how creative we are at a given time, but it can surely exercise it. Back to the quote now.
ReplyDelete"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." -Richard Feynman
I believe that one must have a strong mind to be able to live without knowing. This quote is straightforward and is essentially saying that it is better to truthfully live without knowing, and admit to not knowing, instead of coming up with explanations that could be inaccurate.
After reading this quote, I automatically thought of my first quote,“Ironic as it sounds, inaccuracy is the central assumption of science. No scientific conjecture or hypothesis or theory or statement is 100% accurate. Only the “empty” tautologies of math and logic enjoy that status. Inaccuracy pervades science. The goal of science is to remove as much inaccuracy of description as possible, as much as experimental error and good guesswork and “physical” laws permit.” (Bart Kosko, Fuzzy Thinking: The New Science of Fuzzy Logic. New York: Hyperion, 1993, 86).
Once again, this quote is straightforward. It basically states that science cannot be 100% correct.
The "wrong" answers in the current quote could be the answers that science may give us. For example, science can state that diffusion is the movement of a substance from a high gradient to a low one. Of course, the idea of diffusion has been tested over and over and proven accurate...but what if it is really isn't accurate? What if there has been a key element that scientists have overlooked, or simply just have not discovered. Of course this idea is far fetched, but it just gets one thinking about how much we should rely on science for the answers. Richard Feyman believes that it is okay to live life without knowing everything, instead of just coming up with excuses and explanations. The key idea that I found to be entailed into this quote was that it is simply okay to say "I don't know".
I really like Ami's quote on how new ideas are often criticized, because it might jeopardise the reputation or job of another. This quote hits the nail on the head!! This especially explains why many have hidden the truth of certain histories. Something might be true but many will not want that truth to come out. I'm sure President Wilson was aware that arms were being carried on the Lusitania, but he did not admit to this to secure a reason to enter World War 1.
ReplyDeleteAnother example is Global Warming. Many deny that there is such a thing as climate change out of fear, and not because they doubt the scientific accuracy (although they may claim this).
I myself have to admit that I find it incredibly frustrating when what I think I know is proven wrong. When my writing is critiqued it is not easy to accept my faults, but aren't we all at one point or another disturbed by the truth?
I was very interested by Emilie’s quote:
ReplyDelete“If what we regard as real depends on our theory, how can we make reality the basis of our philosophy? But we cannot distinguish what is real about the universe without a theory…it makes no sense to ask if it corresponds to reality, because we do not know what reality is independent of a theory.” -Stephen Hawking
I like the thought of this quote and how that reality cannot exist without a theory or people (such as ourselves) to question fact from fiction. It is very interesting that not all theories can be tested, like Emilie said that “not all humans have to have proof to consider something as real” because of religion or faith. I remember the first class or so, the idea of “faith” came into play and was very important when deciding how we know what we know. But faith also plays a big part for the reality of most peoples’ lives. For some people, the proof to their theory may not lie behind a scientific solution but based on their own faith.
However, in this quote, I’m not so sure how I like the idea “we cannot distinguish what is real about the universe without a theory”. There may be some truth behind this but I am taking this in two different ways, so right now I’m confused. I am thinking that the only way to know if something is real is to have a theory. Yes, that may be true SOMETIMES but I also think that other times, what is real about the universe can become real without even knowing. I don’t think that you need a theory to prove that something is real, I think some things can’t be defined as ever being a theory, and they require no need to “prove” that it’s real.
I would also like to say I like how Emilie brought up the idea of positivism, because I do also agree that every theory has “an explanation about the world we live in”.
"It is through science that we prove, but through intuition that we discover.” –H. Poincare
ReplyDeleteI love Alysha's quote, that due to science we feel the need to make something true, but through our minds and our perception that we explore enough to discover something new. A new idea must come from somewhere, and according to Poincare, it comes from our interests and where our minds guide us.
I enjoyed the way Alysha decided to break it into two different parts, and give her sentiments as well as examples to support what this quote means. It is completely true that we use proof in many different ways, to expand upon what she said, think about Geometry. Now, to many of us this is not the most exciting and interesting subject, but remember how we used to have to do "proofing" for many of the problems, that can relate to this quote. In a way, Math is the science of numbers, and in order to fully analyze and comprehend a mathematical equation, one must prove their steps.
I found it extremely interesting to think of the fact that it is in science that we often have to prove theories but rather through personal interest or experience that we find what we need to prove. That is the second part of the quote. Like Alysha, who explored the woods and discovered new things about the area as well as herself, one can look at discovery as being rooted to personal interest, and the need for many to explore new things. This quote shows the relation between the need for discovery and how proving is often associated to science as a whole.
“It is the theory which decides what can be observed.” - Albert Einstein
ReplyDeleteI'd like to comment on LolaTOK's quote, because the idea is related to the one presented in my first dissection but portrays more closely my own opinion on the subject and I thought it would be interesting to compare the two.
I agree with what LolaTOK said about the quote: one comes up with a hypothesis, tests it through observation, and, depending on the results, it becomes a theory (which is the most certain you really ever get in science). However, I'd like to take this one step further and suggest that what is observed is based on the theory to the extent that the nature of the theory - and the fact that the theory preempts the observation - actually determines the observations one is able to make. Einstein is saying that once one has decided on a theory - which could be anything from a scientific theory needing proof to a personal opinion - all new information is processed with a predetermined bias. Consciously or subconsciously, the mind will edit out or discredit information, but also pick and choose what it wishes to observe in order to prove itself right. We fulfill our own prophecies.
To compare this to Keats's statement - the mind should attempt to overcome this and allow any manner of thought to pass through it without judgment - both agree it is human nature to observe subjectively, but Keats thinks this should be avoided at all costs in the name of strengthened intellect, while Einstein presents it as a cold fact - this is how we operate. I tend to agree with Einstein, though as I said a few days ago, it would probably be smart for humans as a race to try thinking more openly.
"The only means of strengthening one's intellect is to make up one's mind about nothing -- to let the mind be a thoroughfare for all thoughts. Not a select party." - John Keats
ReplyDeleteI agree with Anna in terms of humans not being able to blok off opinion. It is human nature! Even Vulcans have opinions! However I did not get the message that Keats was saying that we should not have opinions, mostly because of the second part after the hyphen. When Keats says not to make up my mind about anything, I get the message that one should expect there to be other opinions out there, and they should listen to them. Thats why Keats adds on that the mind should not select what to hear and process. Everything should be fair game.
If it is definite that he is saying that one should not have opinions, then that is unreasonable. At one point, one should be able to make a decision of their own,. Just because they make that decision of their own, does not mean they will not listen to other perspectives. And who knows, maybe they will change their ideas.
"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." -Richard Feynman
ReplyDeleteI agree with both Richard and NahFeeSah2 that it is "much more interesting to live not knowing." I feel that one learns more when in everything is not concrete. In that case you are open to new ideas and are able to accept things that you might not even agree too. When everything is solid and it is only what you know that makes sense to you than it is easy to fall into an argument on every subject. To be in doubt gets your mind open to new ideas and it is that doubtfulness that helps you gain an understanding of the world. I myself am never really 100% sure of anything, not even my name because I have never seen my birth certificate and different people spell and pronounce it differently.
"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." -Richard Feynman NahFeeSah2, that is one brilliant response you produced. I must say that I agree whole-heartedly about how incredibly amazing Feynman was. Some of his last words were “I'd hate to die twice. It's so boring”. The man is purely fascinating. I do agree that this quote is based around gaining knowledge and the math analogy is a perfect example. I personally do not agree with the quote though. I much prefer clean cut black and white answers; specifically answers that can be proven. I rather be given a set of answers knowing that some invariably will be incorrect, but I will have the choice to know, for myself, which is correct and which is not.
ReplyDelete“The voyage of discovery lies not in seeking new horizons, but in seeing with new eyes” - Marcel Proust.
ReplyDeleteAt first when I saw this quote, I thought it was a simple idea, but then, as I think more, I realized that this apply to every moments in my life!
What I was thinking is, if I change a way of seeing one simple thing ten minutes ago, I would be totally different now. For example, the reason why I didn’t choose buying a Mac is that I have a lot of program, software that couldn’t fit Mac, so I choose a PC, but after 10days, my PC have the strongest virus in the entire world, and also, all my documents are lost and not to mention all my software and money. Now if I go back to the day when I was picking a computer, I would have consider the benefit that I have if I consider protection is more important than what I could entertain more. This particular example might not apply to everyone, but the idea that the quote explain is everywhere, because whenever you have something that you completely love it, there is always a way that could bring you to the way that you will totally hate it if you look at the thing another way around, or even as your value changed, some specific things that you will see it differently.
“If we will only allow that, as we progress, we remain unsure, we will leave opportunities for alternatives. We will not become enthusiastic for the fact, the knowledge, the absolute truth of the day, but remain always uncertain… In order to make progress, one must leave the door to the unknown ajar.” —Richard Feynman
ReplyDeleteTO commented and said that “If we only think things happened around us are just happened the way it supposed to be without wonder and questioning, we won’t find out its reality…” I agree with her statement. If people don’t wonder why things the way they are they won’t know why they are this way and not another. They also won’t know of other possibilities. Feynman is saying that if people only stick to what they know while moving in life without exploring other options they will always lack knowledge of other choices. Feynman is also saying that in order to make progress and growth people must leave open the possibility of having other options.
“It is through science that we prove, but it is through intuition that we discover” H Poincare.
ReplyDeleteThis statement is very true on many different levels. When Poincare said “through intuition we discover”, one example of this is when Christopher Columbus ended up in the Americas, he was unsure of where he was going but his intuition led him to something greater than he expected.
With intuition, one finds out that X causes Y to happen, but with science one can know, prove or discover why it happened. Also, with intuition one does not need calculations to make the right decision, as Alysha said, this often occurs in personal life (when you do something because you feel it is right).
Alysha also brought up a very interesting point that historians uses science to find out historical facts, but it is also from their intuition that they go and look at the right places for the facts. So this therefore leads to my next point which is that that science and intuition complete each other and work hand in hand!
From intuition you don’t need conscious reasoning or scientifically proof to find something great, but with science you can experiment that “something great” and prove the truth about it to the other people. For example when I was given the swine flu shot, I had the swine flu a couple of days later; this made me angry because I thought the shot gave me the flu. But my father explained to me that indeed the shot caused the flu so that the body can build the antibodies and so if I get it next time my body will know how to fight it.