|
Hi Jamie,
I don't think it's "science" that's at fault here but human
nature, habit, and hubris. Qualities we are prone to as a species and
need to guard against when we see it getting counter-productive
in ourselves. The trouble, in my view, is that not very many people are
even aware of it, much less looking to avoid the pitfalls of it. The fact that
the press is universally remarking on "how amazing it is" that all the
animals in the path of the tsunami managed to figure it out and save themselves,
without any text-messaging or satellite imaging or what-have-you... that's what
blows my mind. The vast scale of human surprise over such a thing
is just amazing to me.
Judith
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Friday, January 07, 2005 10:38
AM
Subject: [ROSEN] Why ignore the 'unknown
or non-obvious?
Why ignore the 'unknown' or
non-obvious?
======
This, it seems to me, is the underscoring
question
behind any thought/reaction system's seeming rejection of
information that is outside the scope of prior acceptance.
To rant
at an established worldview for its inability to readily
accept novel
information .. and insights .. and potential gains
from inclusion of the
new information, and any potential performance
gain that might entail as a
result .. is to not appreciate the scope
of darwinian truth: that
survival of the 'fittest' carries the
embedded reality that systems rely on
prior successes and will
use those as 'attractor space(es)' to re-inforce
identity .. and
systemic integrity ; against any environmental attempt to
alter
the systemic integrity.
Consistency and endurance of form and
activity capacity takes
precedence. Its just how things are.
Newtonian inertial
momentum rising to a presence in all levels of
organization,
simply holding forth as the qualities called 'tradition' and
'habit' and so forth.
You don't impose a beef eating life style on
a culture that
reveres cattle as sacred. You don't mix chiral
road-rules
left side / right side (britain/america) together and
expect
nirvana just because to went from a limited paradigm to a
more
inclusive one.
Science should not be castigated because of its
reluctance
to include novel patterns, thought-space, relations.
The
transform of human knowledge that might be possible
with the arising of any
new inventive way of thinking
and being has to measure up first to
existence's bed-rock
standard: is it utile? is it amenable and
integratable?
is something gained that indisputably takes the system
to
a niche of integrity improvement .. for all the conditions
and parameters
present?
Jamie
|