Thankfully, I am not drowning alone in this pool of ignorance. In Richard Feynman’s article of “Cargo Cult Science,” he articulated the same overwhelming feelings of being consumed by ignorance. In his article he endeavoured to find out all the “wonderful things” people believe these days, such as UFO’s and spiritual chakra healing, and was curious why “most people believe[d] so many of them”, especially when he found many of them to be “ridiculous”.
However, in the article he also described how he, “didn’t realise how MUCH there was” he didn’t know about. By embarking on, what he believed was going to be, a simple task of understanding why people believe such ludicrous ideas, he was met with many new paths leading further into the horizons of ignorance. It seems as if, by the end of the article Feynman had discovered, and not only fully understands what Miller meant by the quotation from the question, but is in full agreement with it. After reading the article the knower can realise that when he embarked on his journey to learn about the “Cargo Cult Sciences” he was ignorant, not only to the answers he sought, but also ignorant to the fact he was ignorant. He was not aware that for every new answer he had found he would be forced to ask himself many more questions as a result of it.
There are, it seems, explicit conclusions in Feynman’s article that allow such a deduction to be made. Feynman’s suggested that pre-established results from prestigious or well-known scientists may sometimes lie in the way of new discoveries and progression of knowledge; these boundaries cause darkness to be cast over the possible discoveries of the future. Feynman appears to have realised that by modelling the results of our experiments to the results of other scientists we have stopped looking for answers to our questions but have rather started looking for questions to fit our answers. For example if a group of scientists had been funded by a particular company, such as Range Rover to find the effects of carbon emissions on the environment, we know that the results found by these scientists will prove some benefit for Range Rover, and will not be entirely truthful. The reasons for this being that Range Rover would have been depending on the scientists to find an answer that benefits their company. As a result of these bias findings we cannot progress our knowledge any further. It is because of this that I feel we have condemned ourselves to lives of ignorance.
The halt to intellectual advancement is not solely the fault of the scientists; we are all to blame. The ignorance in our lives is only further perpetuated by the laissez-faire way in which we simply accept information without question. By not asking these questions and aspiring to increase our knowledge we can never hope to reach the equilibrium between understanding and ignorance.
An example that may help to clarify this declaration that I am attempting to justify would be the paradigm shift of the Sun’s pattern of orbit. Before Galileo Galilee’s discovery of the heliocentric galaxy people were complacent in accepting that their sun, stars and universe revolved around the Earth. By using their senses, seeing, as a way of knowing this was a concept that seemed acceptable to accept without further consideration.
However, it was not until Galileo questioned this idea of a geocentric universe and rejected it because of his own results, rather than forcing the already acknowledged answer onto his findings, that we were able to move forward in our journey of acquiring knowledge.
Consequently, there is a direct opposition to my scientific approach. By considering history’s area of knowledge a case of disagreement presents itself. The horizon of ignorance cannot hope to broaden in historical contexts. The simplistic viewpoint mentioned earlier, that, the more we know means only that we know more details about the topic, applies when reviewing history. When we collect data and piece together the facts in an attempt to understand what has happened it does not cause us to ask more questions. We do not become further ignorant in what has happened in that same instant, because we already know all that there is to know about it. This therefore disproves Miler’s quote that as we increase our knowledge our ignorance expands.
To provide an example that clearly depicts the point above we could question the death of King George VI. If we are to ask ourselves the simple questions, when and how did he die we would be met with the simple answers, “He passed away on the 6th of February 1952 in his sleep.” This information is complete, there is no ignorance gained from this knowledge. The definitiveness of the question allows for a final answer, which means that there is simply nothing left to know about this question. Furthermore, it suggests that Henry Miller’s idea that, as we know more we become more ignorant, is not always true.
However, yet again, it is imperative to consider the ignorance of the knower. If they are ignorant to the fact they are ignorant, and complacent in accepting the information given to them then there is a contradiction, and Miller’s quote is valid.
To consider an example to help clarify this complex idea, we can consider a historian who has heard that Archduke Franz Ferdinand died peacefully in his sleep. Although this example verifies the first point that, by knowing the answer to the historical question, there is simply nothing left to know about this question, it also contradicts it. In considering this example we relies there is a reiterates of the point prior, the point that suggests, yes, in expanding our knowledge we increase our ignorance. The reason for this being that in order to be certain the knower is not ignorant the knower must be 100% certain their knowledge is correct. The historian who thinks that Archduke Franz Ferdinand has died peacefully in his sleep is wrong, and therefore by knowing the false answer he has still increased his horizon of ignorance.
To conclude this argument I feel that the best answer to suggest to a knower is that, yes it is valid, but at the same time, it is not. The knower must think about the context to which they are applying this idea to before they can make a reasonable judgment. By first considering the context, whether it be science or history, or art even, they have progressed further in their ignorance, and if the knower is assured that the knowledge they have gained is 100% accurate they again have come even closer to understanding the extent to which increasing our knowledge increases the horizon of ignorance. It is only after both of these variables have been considered that the knower can truly reach equilibrium of knowledge to ignorance.
Bibliography
Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman!: Adventures of a Curious Character,
Richard Feynman, Ralph Leighton (contributor), Edward Hutchings (editor), 1985, W W Norton, ISBN 0-393-01921-7
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudoscience
Date accessed: 01.02.09
http://www.chem1.com/acad/sci/pseudosci.html
Date accessed: 01.02.09
Why People Believe Weird Things: Pseudoscience, Superstition, and Other Confusions of Our Time
Michael Shermer (contributor) Stephen Jay Gould Published by W.H. Freeman, 1997
ISBN 0716730901, 9780716730903
Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman!: Adventures of a Curious Character, Richard Feynman, Ralph Leighton (contributor), Edward Hutchings (editor), 1985, W W Norton, ISBN 0-393-01921-7