So what is the role of science today? With all of the blank edges of the map filled in, how can science be used to find our own "planetary consciousness?"
I feel that science has changed dramatically within the past five centuries. Science was used to explain the observable unknowns in the universe; however as science explained more things and "filled in the map," the observable unknown became more and more detailed. We've replaced the gravitational laws that great minds like Newton once studied for Large Hadron Colliders and quantum mechanics. Science is rapidly becoming more and more scrutinous, as we are running out of the observable unknown. In this sense I think that our planetary consciousness has transformed into a more universal consciousness as we attempt to explain the laws of the universe in detail.
What do you guys think? Sorry to make you read the chapters if you havent already haha
Posts
I see what you mean. People will always be determined to solve the scientific mysteries of the universe, and as time progresses these unknowns become known. Solving these scientific mysteries answers questions about unknowns, but these answers also open up new mysteries. Thus, we expand our knowledge of the universe even further. I think that this chain will be never-ending.
ReplyDeleteLike Conor said, answers to observable unknowns started with things like Newton's laws. Now we use those answers to solve even greater unknowns. We have expanded our knowledge of the universe out into the galaxy, millions of miles from Earth, but we have also expanded our knowledge of the microscopic elements of the world. With each question answered, another arises. Thus, universal consciousness will exist until we learn every bit of knowledge about the universe. My question is, is it possible to learn everything about the universe? I certainly don't think so. Like I previously said, answers to scientific mysteries will always open up new questions about other mysteries.
This is pretty deep stuff, ha. Well to begin I see where Conor's point comes from, how we use science to explain the unknown. Its only natural for us to justify unknown things with things we are familiar with, in this case science. Though we can use science to justify the unknown, scientific progression continues to challenge what we already try to justify.
ReplyDeleteThis leads to Lauren's comment. Science does progress which opens up new questions that we try to justify with science, but can we learn everything about the universe? I would say yes and no. It depends on how you define learn. Many scientists can justify anything with a theory. Though a theory isn't fact, it's still considered science. Some might say that a theory is just an idea with some scientific fact to back it up. So depending on who you ask, they might say that learning is based of all fact then they would assume that everything about the universe cannot be explained. Then again another person would might disagree and say that a theory is learning. So basically I think it depends on who you ask. Some might say that everything can be learned with science while others would disagree.
Hahaaaa, Matt you seemed so intrigued by our group's ability to intellectually talk about Science as explorers!
ReplyDeleteWell to start off, I would NEVER have thought to talk about what Conor talked about. What you brought up is completely true (along with what Matt and Lauren agreed on): we use Science to fill in the "blanks" and the questions we all have. Alike religion, we as humans are very dependent on other things to follow and help us feel comfortable. Science, religion, and really anything "logical" are the backbone to what we all live by and base our lives off of. Though you did mention that since so many questions of the unknown only open doors to more questions, I believe that Science has stayed the same since the beginning of time. We still believe in Science and depend on it just as much as we did at the conception of the invention that is "Science". I feel like we will forever stay in this little bubble of Science that we so shamelessly depend on. It is not necessarily a bad thing, though, and if anything the constant questions that come from the original Scientific questions will keep us curious and healthily adventurous until the end of time.
On another note, the definition of "universe", as Matt mentioned, is also up to debate. The idea is all up to perspective and opinion and there is nothing really to do about that. Just like Science, some people will use it more than others and others will depend on it more than others, but in the end it turns out that we are all Scientifically advancing no matter what we do. The universe is advancing, and will never stop---which only means that WE will forever be advancing and searching, and really doing what makes man. We are a curious, risk-taking people and forever will be.
I realize this is kinda far-fetched, but when you think of it the want for discovery and to find the "answers" is what keeps us going. If we were to stop, what would happen to us?
Til next time,
Cara-Joy :)
Conor makes a very interesting point. It seems to be in a scientist's nature to strive to find and solve the great myriad of questions the world presents, whether it be in the form of research, invention, exploration, or calculation. In the referenced work, Pratt talks about the French vs. English scientific contest to determine the shape of the Earth and how so much more came from the expedition. Through the collective scientific curiosities, diplomatic boundaries were lifted (if only slightly), new places were explored, analyzed, and documented, and so forth. Where, previously, the only reliable information was that of the coast, now, some more was known about the blank spaces past the coasts. After all, as, "In 1822, Alexander von Humboldt affirmed, 'It is not by sailing the coast that we can discover the direction of the chains of mountains and their geological constitution, the climate of each zone, and its influence on the forms and habits of organized beings.'" (Pratt, 24)
ReplyDeleteAs Conor mentioned, today, there are almost no blank spots left on the map. As we learn more, the focus of study moves on to the next mystery - exploring all of the Earth, then on to the Moon, then to near by planet, and so on. The only thing off about this, as Lauren first brought up, is that it is likely not possible to know everything about the universe. As scientific focus shifts elsewhere, some previously important areas may become overlooked and give rise to new problems. Take the movie "I Am Legend." Lady scientist comes up with the cure for cancer. Yay! Everyone gets fixed; and, the world moves on to the next problem ... And we all know how well that turns out. However, for a more real world example, take the use of fossil fuels. Years ago, Ford invents a car that runs on a fuel which, compared to the massive amounts of food and space a horse needs, was otherwise useless. This solved the problem for years, until around the time of the Carter administration and then again in modern day with the problems in the Middle East and the problems the air pollution has caused. I'm not suggesting that scientists come up with a perfect answer the first time, just that we should not accept a convenient answer as a final one and wait until problems arise to question it. As Cara-Joy said, the universe is advancing; it's our nature to advance with it. But if we move blindly ahead too quickly to the vast mysteries of the interior, we may get lost in it forever (to which any mad scientist might attest).
Correction, Robert Neville(Will Smith) found the cure for the infection not the chick who found him.
ReplyDeleteAnd actually it was not even the cure for cancer--it was a vaccine that thought it could cure people who had cancer that ended up infecting everyone.
ReplyDeleteJust by the way :)
My [abbreviated] P.C. Response!
ReplyDelete•Our need to “fill in the blanks” of what we don’t know is a lot like religion—we depend on other things to help us feel comfortable about what we don’t know.
•Science has stayed the same since its creation—we still depend on it and use it to guide us just as much as we did in the past when the idea first arose.
•We may or may not depend on Science as much as we do now, but until we stop, Scientific questions will keep us curious and healthily adventurous until the end of time.
•The universe will continue to advance until the end of time…but it’s up to us to decide whether or not we are going to advance along with it and what we are going to do as man to keep up with its fast-paced progression.
•Q: What would happen to us if we lost the will to discover and stopped wanting all the “answers”?
(Response to the corrections: Was talking about the VERY beginning of the movie, the thing that made the people sick was a genetically altered form of measles meant to attack cancerous cells the mutated. The original for was made by the lady doctor on the news and hailed as a cure. Didn't mention Dr. Neville's cure for the cure.)
ReplyDelete~The la Condamine Expedition filled in unknown parts of the map, expanding knowledge of the world through exploration.
~Knowledge continuing to expand today, into space and the depths of the ocean.
~Must still continually revisit what's been previously discovered
~~Fossil fuels
~~Cures for diseases, such as the flu
~Just as the land continued to change after the la Condamine explorers returned home, what we thought we knew about our world changes in the wake of our advancing discoveries.
If you find a place to include it:
"In 1822, Alexander von Humboldt affirmed, 'It is not by sailing the coast that we can discover the direction of the chains of mountains and their geological constitution, the climate of each zone, and its influence on the forms and habits of organized beings.'" (Pratt, 24)
Mine is basically about the difference between scientific fact and theory.
ReplyDelete-Science can be defined using theory or fact
-Justification of the unknown is naturally explained by what we know whether its fact or theory.
-We use science to justify the unknown, but can you use theory to justify things
-Question: can science really be used to define the unknown even if we use theory as justification??
-Systematizing of nature to "fill in the map"
ReplyDelete-The more we know, the less there is to explore
-Science has grown more detailed in the past 3 centuries
-Science has an inherent nature to change
-What is our "Planetary Consciousness?"
*I figured the last one would be a good rhetorical question to lead in to the rest of the presentation rather than at the end of the whole presentation.
(sorry this is so late)