| Author | Thread |
|
|
06/02/2009 12:52:17 AM · #1 |
Came across this snippet from Arthur Kantrowitz, from a talk he gave at Dartmouth College in 1994:
Originally posted by Arthur Kantrowitz:
"When a conjecture inspires new hopes or creates new fears, action is indicated. There is an important asymmetry between hope, which leads to actions which will test its basis, and fear, which leads to restriction of options frequently preventing any attempt at testing. As we know only too well, many of our hopes do not survive their tests. However, fears accumulate untested. Our inventory of untested fears has always made humanity disastrously vulnerable to thought control. Independent science's greatest triumph [has been] the reduction of that vulnerability." |
I find this incredibly thought-provoking...
R.
Message edited by author 2009-06-02 00:53:20. |
|
|
|
06/02/2009 12:54:12 AM · #2 |
| I agree. It is so well worded that it makes one take a moment to give it thought. |
|
|
|
06/02/2009 01:52:02 AM · #3 |
Yes, very well said. The more you think about it, the better it says it. Thanks for sharing.
It's a lot easier to shoot down someone's false dreams than it is to reassure someone with unfounded fears. Here's one of my personal mantras - "Optimism in the face of reality. Hold onto the dream while you figure out how to make reality agree with you."
... and a random thought of the day that pops to mind ...
A cat that walks on a hot stove will not do it again, but nor will it walk on a cold stove.
|
|
|
|
06/02/2009 02:29:02 AM · #4 |
Fear is getting a bad rap here! :P Seriously, can you have hope without fear? Not to turn this into a rant (I'm optimistic it won't :)), but does Obama win the election if there wasn't a fear of the Bush policies continuing on via McCain?
Message edited by author 2009-06-02 02:30:01.
|
|
|
|
06/02/2009 03:06:19 AM · #5 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Came across this snippet from Arthur Kantrowitz, from a talk he gave at Dartmouth College in 1994:
Originally posted by Arthur Kantrowitz:
"When a conjecture inspires new hopes or creates new fears, action is indicated. There is an important asymmetry between hope, which leads to actions which will test its basis, and fear, which leads to restriction of options frequently preventing any attempt at testing. As we know only too well, many of our hopes do not survive their tests. However, fears accumulate untested. Our inventory of untested fears has always made humanity disastrously vulnerable to thought control. Independent science's greatest triumph [has been] the reduction of that vulnerability." |
I find this incredibly thought-provoking...
R. |
i'd really like to test religion and see whether there's hope (heaven) or fear (hell) |
|
|
|
06/02/2009 05:41:30 AM · #6 |
Originally posted by crayon:
i'd really like to test religion and see whether there's hope (heaven) or fear (hell) |
The whole thing depends on if you consider religion being a conjecture. Some people just have faith it is not ;-) |
|
|
|
06/02/2009 07:54:48 AM · #7 |
| Thanks Robert, it is truly a thought provoking quote. |
|
|
|
06/02/2009 08:22:42 AM · #8 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Came across this snippet from Arthur Kantrowitz, from a talk he gave at Dartmouth College in 1994:
Originally posted by Arthur Kantrowitz:
"When a conjecture inspires new hopes or creates new fears, action is indicated. There is an important asymmetry between hope, which leads to actions which will test its basis, and fear, which leads to restriction of options frequently preventing any attempt at testing. As we know only too well, many of our hopes do not survive their tests. However, fears accumulate untested. Our inventory of untested fears has always made humanity disastrously vulnerable to thought control. Independent science's greatest triumph [has been] the reduction of that vulnerability." |
I find this incredibly thought-provoking...
R. |
It's easier to face your dreams than face your fears, but not by much. Neither is likely to be specific, which makes any kind of action including testing unlikely. In my experience people are mostly busy dealing with obsession and/or compulsion, while occasionally being driven by fear. So, yes I agree with Mr. Kantrowitz. Science gives us a mostly-safe way of testing fearsome things. |
|
|
|
06/02/2009 11:25:54 AM · #9 |
| I like the quote, although upon reflection I wonder if Mr. Kantrowitz is cheating the definitions of hope and fear a bit. There seems, to me, to be an important difference between, "I fear we will never be able to land on the moon." and "I fear my love is unrequited." One is a disappointed or inquisitive fear. The second is a deep, gnawing fear. So while Science has definitely helped us live with less fear in one regard (fear of infections, fear of bodily harm, etc), it has done nothing about the important fears which occupy most people (so much so that they are probably part and parcel of who Man is). Fear of death. Fear of rejection. Fear of failure. Fear of evil. and so forth. These fears are the ones that make people "disasterously vulnerable to thought control" (if any do), and Science is mainly impotent in their domain. |
|
|
|
06/02/2009 12:04:23 PM · #10 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I like the quote, although upon reflection I wonder if Mr. Kantrowitz is cheating the definitions of hope and fear a bit. There seems, to me, to be an important difference between, "I fear we will never be able to land on the moon." and "I fear my love is unrequited." One is a disappointed or inquisitive fear. The second is a deep, gnawing fear. So while Science has definitely helped us live with less fear in one regard (fear of infections, fear of bodily harm, etc), it has done nothing about the important fears which occupy most people (so much so that they are probably part and parcel of who Man is). Fear of death. Fear of rejection. Fear of failure. Fear of evil. and so forth. These fears are the ones that make people "disasterously vulnerable to thought control" (if any do), and Science is mainly impotent in their domain. |
I am pretty sure he meant the gnawing fear. I had a grandfather who was sincerely afraid of using a fridge or watching TV, because he dreaded the gamma radiation... As a doctor, you certainly know the fear of vaccines, X-ray,... Sure, you cannot translate everything into a rational argument, nor avoid instinctive emotions. But some hopes/fears can be settled by looking into them. If you compare the fear of death in the middle age and nowadays, I am pretty sure that science had some influence... |
|
|
|
06/02/2009 12:11:29 PM · #11 |
Originally posted by MistyMucky:
I am pretty sure he meant the gnawing fear. I had a grandfather who was sincerely afraid of using a fridge or watching TV, because he dreaded the gamma radiation... As a doctor, you certainly know the fear of vaccines, X-ray,... Sure, you cannot translate everything into a rational argument, nor avoid instinctive emotions. But some hopes/fears can be settled by looking into them. If you compare the fear of death in the middle age and nowadays, I am pretty sure that science had some influence... |
Interestingly, I'd say no to the last comment. I bet the individual fears death to the same extent now as in the middle ages. We all still die. :) Perhaps it's more revealing to ask how death may be perceived by the college graduate living in New York, the laborer in West Virginia, or the farmer in Kenya. It's probably true the college grad faces death the least, but ironically he may fear it the most. |
|
|
|
06/02/2009 12:19:53 PM · #12 |
| The pseudo-science of psychology has certainly helped to put a label on many fears. |
|
|
|
06/02/2009 12:22:13 PM · #13 |
I don't think the argument is advanced by engaging it on the outer fringes of the unknown, by bringing up issues such as "fear of death"... Death's a legitimate fear, because... well... we all DIE, don't we? It can't be avoided. Religion is one answer to that fear, of course, and arguably fear of death is the main motivator of the religious impulse, and that's fine, but it's not what Kantrowitz is talking about.
For me, the more interesting level of discussion would be how society, in general, can be said to constructed out of shared responses to widespread fears, and how society is inherently "conservative", seeking to institutionalize the status quo and sweep our fears under a shared carpet, so to speak.
To the extent that science has consistently ventured into "forbidden territory" (the region that's under the carpet, basically) and sought to expose these shared fears to the light of reason, it has been a radical force within society, and that's the issue we're dealing with here. Science works against the demonization of the feared, is the argument, and it's a compelling one. But it doesn't mean he's saying, in any way, that science has all the answers, to everything. Rather, he's saying science, as a radical force, is a balancing force.
R. |
|
|
|
06/02/2009 12:29:43 PM · #14 |
Robert, can you give me a concrete example of your last paragraph? I think we like to think in these generalities, but ultimately Science may let us down in this matter. What do you mean by the "demonization of the feared" and how has Science countered that? I'm trying to judge whether you are just saying nice stuff, or there are concrete examples of Science at work in such a manner.
The part of the quote that I think tries to lead Science where it can't necessarily go is when he says, "Our inventory of untested fears has always made humanity disastrously vulnerable to thought control." What does he mean by this? How does Science help it? |
|
|
|
06/02/2009 12:32:42 PM · #15 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Robert, can you give me a concrete example of your last paragraph? I think we like to think in these generalities, but ultimately Science may let us down in this matter. What do you mean by the "demonization of the feared" and how has Science countered that? I'm trying to judge whether you are just saying nice stuff, or there are concrete examples of Science at work in such a manner.
The part of the quote that I think tries to lead Science where it can't necessarily go is when he says, "Our inventory of untested fears has always made humanity disastrously vulnerable to thought control." What does he mean by this? How does Science help it? |
In the dark ages following the Black Death, the church preyed on our fears of the plague to keep us under her thumb. Eventually science removed the "demonic" aspect of the plague by discovering and seeking to understand the mechanisms of infection and transmittal, and the pervasive fear that kept us under the church's thumb began to lessen.
R.
ETA: Mental illness, in general, would be another example; not that long ago "crazies" were demonized, now we understand them better and tend to deal with them from a more compassionate perspective, as individuals.
Message edited by author 2009-06-02 12:35:20. |
|
|
|
06/02/2009 12:51:20 PM · #16 |
Our understanding has certainly increased, but I propose our fears have essentially remained. We don't fear the mentally ill because they are possessed by demons, but we do still have fear because we understand they may not act in ways we can predict because of chemical imbalances found in the brain. (And certainly we do not fear all mental illness, but I'm sure there was compassion back in the Middle Ages as well.)
Institutions are always apt to position themselves to maximize their power. We replace one demagogue (perhaps the Church) with another. Men of Science prey upon our fears to make money hand over fist. Often the science is distorted into quackery, but it is presented as science which can prolong our lives, or make us happier, etc. One can reply this is not "real Science", but I'd respond that the worst of the Middle Ages was not "real religion".
At the base the fear remains.
Now let me take a step back for a moment and still say I like the quote and I think there is truth found within. Science has been a boon of our race and there is no way I'd want to give up the advances we have made in the name of Science. I just want to provoke some thought about whether Science is everything and whether it actually fights "thought control" like the quoter indicates to any more or less extent than philosophy or religion? |
|
|
|
06/02/2009 01:06:17 PM · #17 |
I love Science. It makes my life interesting.
But I could make the argument that Science has done nothing about basic fears: death, pain, hunger, loneliness, the unknown. Science has made possible many more fears & phobias. Fear of flying, elevators, needles, radio waves, nuclear radiation,dentists, etc., not to mention the fears advertising has added to our list such as Fear of dull teeth, body odor, & an ugly nose, the fixes for which have all been made possible by science.
Thought-provoking quote. Thanks! |
|
|
|
06/02/2009 01:08:32 PM · #18 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I just want to provoke some thought about whether Science is everything and whether it actually fights "thought control" like the quoter indicates to any more or less extent than philosophy or religion? |
I don't think that's his point, Jason. He certainly isn't saying "science is everything", and he doesn't mention religion at all, for that matter. I think his point is that unreasoning fear makes us terribly vulnerable (a point with which I agree), and that science has acted, historically, to examine much of what we fear and expose it to the light of reason. It's not some kind of a dogma he's espousing, just a slightly different, or deeper, take on what science means to us as a people.
R. |
|
|
|
06/02/2009 01:32:32 PM · #19 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I just want to provoke some thought about whether Science is everything and whether it actually fights "thought control" like the quoter indicates to any more or less extent than philosophy or religion? |
I don't think that's his point, Jason. He certainly isn't saying "science is everything", and he doesn't mention religion at all, for that matter. I think his point is that unreasoning fear makes us terribly vulnerable (a point with which I agree), and that science has acted, historically, to examine much of what we fear and expose it to the light of reason. It's not some kind of a dogma he's espousing, just a slightly different, or deeper, take on what science means to us as a people.
R. |
Yes. Quite true. I guess I'm just saying that "much of what we (really) fear" is beyond the "light of reason" Science can provide.
Good conversation though. I wish I had more time to devote to it, but work is slamming this time of the year. |
|
|
|
06/02/2009 01:55:29 PM · #20 |
 Bear_Music thanks for posting, DrAchoo thanks for your contribution to this thread. I must say it has made it a very interesting read and debate. The first thread I have read from OP to now in a long time. Thought provoking and interesting.
Scott |
|
|
|
06/02/2009 03:07:09 PM · #21 |
I "fear" global warming, and want facts and truth, straight up and unpoliticized, to provide basis for my fear, or soothing. But, the discussion is closed in many minds, it's already decided, desperate action is required, control is ceded to the enlightened few, despite what some science may indicate. So that science is not encouraged, the fear is not explored and vanquished, but nurtured. Just an example that jumped right out at me on reading the original quote. Apply religeon, politics, whatever to it, and the basic idea remains: light vanquishes darkness...but some prefer the darkness. You can't tell spooky stories under the mid-day sun.
|
|
|
|
06/02/2009 04:14:52 PM · #22 |
Doc, I think you and some others are misunderstanding the quote. He's not saying that science cures fear. He's saying that science advances knowledge. Fear is an obstacle to knowledge, and science has certain tools that help it get around fear.
"Thought control" has been perpetrated by many institutions, not just religion. It can also rise "organically," as when a village witnesses a volcanic eruption. Perhaps the volcano erupted right after they planted corn. So they never plant corn again. This is how the human mind often works (including stock brokers and politicians), but it is not scientific. Science demands you plant corn 10 more times, and then plant wheat, document the results, try to get it published, etc. |
|
|
|
06/02/2009 04:37:56 PM · #23 |
I understand it along the same lines than posthumous. The quote is a pleading for the scientific method, which tries to look into things objectively and reproducibly (alas very idealistic). Nobody says it makes the world a better place!
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
It's probably true the college grad faces death the least, but ironically he may fear it the most. |
I guess it's because he has the most to lose and does not expect a lot from afterlife. In this case, it's not a removed fear, but a destroyed hope. Totally along the original quote in my eyes. |
|
|
|
06/02/2009 04:41:17 PM · #24 |
Originally posted by posthumous:
Doc, I think you and some others are misunderstanding the quote. He's not saying that science cures fear. He's saying that science advances knowledge. Fear is an obstacle to knowledge, and science has certain tools that help it get around fear.
"Thought control" has been perpetrated by many institutions, not just religion. It can also rise "organically," as when a village witnesses a volcanic eruption. Perhaps the volcano erupted right after they planted corn. So they never plant corn again. This is how the human mind often works (including stock brokers and politicians), but it is not scientific. Science demands you plant corn 10 more times, and then plant wheat, document the results, try to get it published, etc. |
I think you have your thumb on exactly how science benefits us. In this regard it does exactly as described; advancing knowledge which can help remove unwarranted fears.
I think what I was remarking on was Kantrowitz' underlying spculation that Science has prevented "thought control" better than anything else ("Independent Science's greatest triumph has been the reduction of that vulnerability.") Before Science, Katrowitz implies there was a certain level of "thought control". After Science, that level has diminished. I am disagreeing to an extent and offering that one demagogue is merely being replaced at times by another. Our most fundamental fears remain present and open to exploitation. The cynic would merely contend we now have multiple fronts on which to defend ourselves.
The great divisions of our knowledge (science and philosophy) both have the ability to promote and thwart "thought control". The honorable battle against such things has been waged long before Science arrived. We now have new tools at our disposal, but those tools are meant for specific purposes in my opinion and, in fact, do not work on some of the most important areas we are prone to fear. That's all I'm saying. It doesn't negate Katrowitz, it only expands upon it and cautions us not to look to Science for everything because it too will not live up to such high expectations. |
|
|
|
06/02/2009 04:52:54 PM · #25 |
Very interesting. Science does take away the mysteries of life. But, when push comes to shove, the old, primitive fears still surface. No matter how advanced we feel we have become, there is no way for us to get rid of our basic animal instincts.
Knowledge is a dangerous thing, we all know about death, and we know about eating wisely to prolong our lives. Yet, science tells us on a regular basis that certain food/drinks are good for us, then they tell us a little later that they are bad for us. It makes you think that perhaps the scientists are hedging their bets just as most of us are!
Science works, so I am told. Death happens, so I am told, but I will never know if this is true. But inspiration and invention is what drives and moulds our lives. |
|
