Tuesday, September 2, 2014
I'm allowed to write extra posts, right?
What made us so upset in class today?
At some point in the discussion, each of us felt annoyed, irritated, perplexed, or upset. As English majors, we have developed egos. We see ourselves as elite, the learned, the enlighteners and illuminatis of our generation. We stay in tune with the times, we look below the surface level, we analyze, and we engage in conversations beyond our years. So, when a question comes up such as (ultimately) “what is truth?” we are confounded. And we hate it. Our fragile egos are brought down by a simple scribble on the white board, and we’re stumped—no longer having the upper hand.
Here’s what I think about science. We pursue it, not as a destination or a final singular answer, but for everything beautiful and fragmented we'll discover along the way. For every partial answer, and every incomplete realization that (we hope) points to something bigger. We hate our limitation and the fact that we will never know it all, but if we are to pursue science without going mad, we must accept our finiteness. And enjoy the process for the richness and self-discovery it offers. We chase the unattainable, knowing that our continual journey into the unknowable will profit us. It will answer questions, ask hundreds more, discover the incredible and unthinkable, and allow us to simultaneously seek ourselves.
“Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.”
—the Apostle Paul
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Hi Anjeli,
ReplyDeleteI thought what you said about being upset to be interesting. To be honest… I wasn’t upset about our discussion of truth directly. I did, however, feel that it went against some personal values that I had. Namely, Psychology. To be perfectly blunt, I don’t think there really is such a thing as ‘truth’ because in Psychology (which is a different world than the Writing field – in both good and frustrating ways), I’ve been taught to realize that there isn’t anything “proven” in psychological research. We can only test for causal relationships and give a percentage of reliability at the end of the day. One of the reasons for this is because of extraneous variables. Let’s take, for example, an allergy pill and its effects on allergies. We can pull a handful of people aside and give them a pill to see how effective it is while at the same time give them a sugar pill to act as a placebo (something that has no effect, but is given to compare the effects of the allergy pill). That’s easier said than done because we don’t know exactly as to what influences the effects of the allergies. What if there wasn’t any pollen generated that day? What if some of the people have different types of allergies than what they thought? And if we decide to have this research study go beyond a day or two, then the amounts of allergy impacts could vary from person to person and so on.
Psychologists try to reduce the effects of unwanted variables as best as they can, but sometimes there can always be other errors such as calculation errors etc. One of the ways they try to reduce the chance of error is to perform different types of statistics tests to see how significant the results of the data is. However, one must be careful because even if the answer is in the significant range, the data may actually not be significant enough to reject the null hypothesis. The reasons for this result are numerous but one that can be named is a calculation error.
Aaaaaannnnnnnyyyywwaaaaaayyy. I’m sorry about all of that. In a shorter answer, yes, I agree with you. I too believe that “truth” and “fact” don’t exactly exist, but that there is an infinite amount of knowledge one can attain in their lifetime. I’m beginning to think that “truth” and “fact” are just concepts adopted in our society because the types of information surrounding those terms are what certain types of cultures accept as the way of life. The way I apply this to psychology is that psychology is a specific group of people with certain values… The way they define “truth” in psychological research may be what works for them and their field, but maybe not for other people who do not share those types of values. This is what I think, at least :).
If what I said confused you, I’m sorry, I’ll try to clarify it when I can :).
An(n)Je(ssica)(E)li(zabeth)-
ReplyDeleteI think it's a fine name! Especially considering you could have been named Nssicaezabeth, I think your parents picked the right parts of the names. Sounds like Beelzebub's cousin. But anyways...
I too felt tensions rise in class, and it was gradually getting funnier and funnier. It was essentially a circular discussion that would zoom out on humanity and give us a glimpse of all that we'll never know, and then zooming back in and giving us a glimpse of what we are, and what we can do with our limited minds and bodies. I certainly agree with you about having a writers ego, but the more evidence I see that others feel that way too, I dial my ego back (or at least better know when to inflate and deflate it). Truth...whether it be a lower case or upper case "T", does not exist for our species. We only have 5 shitty senses, and the universe is too vast to pick apart with so few tools. Perhaps if Tom Sawyer white washed the fence with needles, one faint line at a time, he would have realized his efforts were futile and given up. But that's the fascinating thing about humans, we keep persevering.
I'm not saying we should give up on science or the quest for knowledge, but at this point it seems like we should admit a few things. We will never discover ANYTHING about the world or universe, we will ONLY discover things about ourselves as a species (emotionally, physically, and mentally). How would science look to us then? If we went out into the field to study hetero/homo birds with the INTENT of learning about how we feel about it, what our gut reactions are, and what personifications we insert...could we get any closer to universality, since any organism that reads and has an opinion on the material is inevitably human? Probably still not, because human nature is to argue that my blue is your green and without ripping your eyes out and wiring them to my head, there is no way to know.
I'm completely fine with knowing all science can only further define us, not our world. But it puzzles me that science still continues with intent to unravel the universe. It will never be done. So, like you say, let's get comfortable with how finite we are, get over our god complexes, and look within instead of out.
In reference to some questions you asked me on my blog...what is that magic that happens in the first draft? This is an answer that probably changes per situation, but lately...
It's the poetic fluidity that can only speak to the writer. First drafts never seem to be missing anything when the writer reads it, (in my creative experience anyways) because our minds know how to fill the gaps even if we don't realize it. Surely if the idea sprang from the mind, the mind knows all; beginning, middle, and end, even if the page only knows half. There is something about a first draft's vagueness that is a pleasing puzzle for the mind...a double meaning here, an accidental metaphor there. But revision requires us to sharpen ambiguity, and spell out what we mean, so that the reader can feel the completeness that the author had in mind. Real writers write with readers Doug says, and that's worth something. But my personal opinion is that the writer's fulfillment comes from their own appreciation of the work, not the reader's. So writing writers read their writing. Or something.
Anjeli,
ReplyDeleteLol, of course you can write extra posts! What you had to say was super insightful. I liked your phrase, "fragile egos." But why fragile? Why are we so embarrassed when we make mistakes, so frustrated when we don't know the answers? I think for two reasons:
1) We place part of our identity in being the "elite, the learned, the enlighteners and illuminatis." A blow to identity leaves us scrambling for a replacement.
2) No longer "having the upper hand" refers to a power struggle. For those who are unsure where to place their identity, they place it in a position of power, of lording over people "lower" than themselves (which goes back to point 1.
(Note: Now hang with me here ‘til the very end, or my next few thoughts might seem confusing and disjointed.)
This issue of identity makes me think of what Polanyi said about arguing with someone of a different “framework” than oneself: “Formal operations relying on one framework of interpretation cannot demonstrate a proposition to persons who rely on another framework. Its advocates may not even succeed in getting a hearing from these, since they must first teach them a new language, and no one can learn a new language unless he first trusts that it means something” (195). Convincing someone of something doesn’t involve mere argument because people are so much more than just their “reasoning.” Doug pointed out the other day that some people think, “I don’t want to believe this because it would inconvenience my life; I’d have to change my lifestyle.” Our classmate Craig stated that a person who thinks thus is simply “close-minded” and that one should go wherever the evidence leads. Ideally, yes, I’d agree with him. However, the situation isn’t as simple as that; to switch from one framework to another might feel, in many respects, like relinquishing one’s will. “So what,” you might say. “What’s wrong with that?”
Well, this issue isn’t necessarily a matter of “right” or “wrong” per se, as you’ll soon see. For example, consider this hypothetical situation (which I’ve picked since it will most likely, and usually, causes strong reactions in people one way or the other and will serve to prove my point): someone confronts a theist with strong, undeniable evidence contradicting the possibility of God’s existence. If the theist should accept the evidence, his lifestyle would have to change: he’d have to reevaluate the way he lives his life from the perspective of no afterlife or divine purpose, which would seem like a plummet into hopeless insignificance and vain-glory pursuits. Consider this second hypothetical situation: someone approaches an atheist with strong, undeniable evidence pointing towards the existence of God. If the atheist should accept the evidence, his lifestyle would have to change: he’d have to reevaluate the way he lives his life from the perspective of eternal life or judgment, which would seem like a constraint on his free will.
Obviously my hypothetical scenarios are not “scientific,” and I’m sure that most everyone who read it fiercely disliked one of the two situations. If these were just “mere speculations,” no one should passionately move one way or the other; after all, a question concerning the existence or nonexistence of rainbow-colored blob fish would likely pass without batting an eyelash. However, with the peculiar nature of these hypothetical situations, the real issue deals with people’s wills and ultimately, identity. Who you perceive yourself to be affects your actions. Sadly, most people think what they do (whether achieving or failing) determines who they are. So if they spend most of their life thinking and acting within the context of one framework, then to be told (or shown) that they are wrong and have to change, they would feel lost, invalidated, like their entire person was built on a sham. If people felt upset in class, then I’d venture that this was the reason why.
Sadie
P.S. Sorry for the insanely lengthy comment!
Please, never apologize. I love your mind.
Delete--Anjeli
(I just wanna step in here long enough to say, you are all amazing. Superb discussion. Glad you're keeping it rolling beyond class.)
ReplyDelete