If wishes were horses...
I wish I was as eloquent as some people that I have read and heard, but that would be the second step. The first would be to have the knowledge and the ideas, that in turn require articulation skills that allow for those ideas to be communicated to others.
Having said that, I would still like to try and say what I think. Hoping that it makes some sense to people, and in turn understand what they are trying to say.
At best, I am a pseudo-intellectual, lacking the necessary depth of knowledge in almost everything. So I try not to delve into things that I don't know everything about and keep my arguments simple, following the logic and rationale of a philosophical argument. I am a believer in Occam's Razor, the idea that "All other things being equal, the simplest solution is the best."
I am also a follower of the "Scientific Method", something which was very elegantly described by Ibn Al Haytham in the tenth century who said that "Truth is sought for its own sake. And those who are engaged upon the quest for anything for its own sake are not interested in other things. Finding the truth is difficult, and the road to it is rough."
In its simplest form, the scientific method consists of the following
1. Observation
2. Formulation of a hypothesis
3. Testing of the hypothesis
4. Confirmation or rejection of the hypothesis based on 3
The scientific method has served humanity well for the last thousand years. It does not necessarily find the ultimate truth, because with time and knowledge acquired using the scientific method, the complexity of our hypotheses and our testing capabilities grow. And today we might be talking about quantum physics rather than planetary orbits, because we can look inside an atom.
We have sent probes to Neptune, eradicated small pox, created so much pollution that it threatens to destroy our ecology, and it has all been done using science. Even for the things that aren't so great, the solution is still found using science.
Imagine my frustration when some other pseudo-intellectual like myself starts telling me that they know the ultimate truth, when there is none to be found. These are the same people who are reaping the benefits of the scientific method, their kids are vaccinated against diseases that were a scourge only a few centuries ago, their quality of life and expectancy improved greatly, again because of science and they have the audacity to pervert and equate science into some baseless superstition. I am sorry, but I will not sit back and let this happen without raising my voice against it.
The opposite of the scientific method is to take dogma as the truth, and try and fit empirical evidence into supporting their already arrived at theory. I have the following to say for my fellow pseudo-intellectuals who are on this shabby path, "Bugger Off" and keep your superstition to yourself. You are most welcome to live in your lala-land, stop getting vaccinated against evolving bacteria and viruses, since its just a theory, right? May the pox be on you!
Having said that, I would still like to try and say what I think. Hoping that it makes some sense to people, and in turn understand what they are trying to say.
At best, I am a pseudo-intellectual, lacking the necessary depth of knowledge in almost everything. So I try not to delve into things that I don't know everything about and keep my arguments simple, following the logic and rationale of a philosophical argument. I am a believer in Occam's Razor, the idea that "All other things being equal, the simplest solution is the best."
I am also a follower of the "Scientific Method", something which was very elegantly described by Ibn Al Haytham in the tenth century who said that "Truth is sought for its own sake. And those who are engaged upon the quest for anything for its own sake are not interested in other things. Finding the truth is difficult, and the road to it is rough."
In its simplest form, the scientific method consists of the following
1. Observation
2. Formulation of a hypothesis
3. Testing of the hypothesis
4. Confirmation or rejection of the hypothesis based on 3
The scientific method has served humanity well for the last thousand years. It does not necessarily find the ultimate truth, because with time and knowledge acquired using the scientific method, the complexity of our hypotheses and our testing capabilities grow. And today we might be talking about quantum physics rather than planetary orbits, because we can look inside an atom.
We have sent probes to Neptune, eradicated small pox, created so much pollution that it threatens to destroy our ecology, and it has all been done using science. Even for the things that aren't so great, the solution is still found using science.
Imagine my frustration when some other pseudo-intellectual like myself starts telling me that they know the ultimate truth, when there is none to be found. These are the same people who are reaping the benefits of the scientific method, their kids are vaccinated against diseases that were a scourge only a few centuries ago, their quality of life and expectancy improved greatly, again because of science and they have the audacity to pervert and equate science into some baseless superstition. I am sorry, but I will not sit back and let this happen without raising my voice against it.
The opposite of the scientific method is to take dogma as the truth, and try and fit empirical evidence into supporting their already arrived at theory. I have the following to say for my fellow pseudo-intellectuals who are on this shabby path, "Bugger Off" and keep your superstition to yourself. You are most welcome to live in your lala-land, stop getting vaccinated against evolving bacteria and viruses, since its just a theory, right? May the pox be on you!
posted by Xoff at 3/27/2008 06:53:00 AM
2 Comments:
Ha, ha. Brilliant! I couldn't have said it better myself. I, too, have limited knowledge about many things, but I have done enough research to write 30 books, albeit for children and young adults. My latest is Ibn al-Haytham: First Scientist, the world's first full biography of the eleventh-century Muslim scholar known in the West as Alhazen or Alhacen. You rightly point out that he was the first person to systematically test hypotheses with experiments. I enjoyed your stripped-down version of the scientific method, which captures the essential difference between Ibn al-Haytham his predecessors. I also agree that the scientific method does not answer all questions, but it has yielded a great deal of useful information.
Thank you kind sir.
Post a Comment
<< Home