The Folly of Enlightenment and the Pretense to Knowledge
‘To cast aside from Poetry all that is not Inspiration,
That it no longer shall dare to mock with the aspersion of Madness
To cast off the idiot Questioner who is always questioning
But never capable of answering, who sits with a sly grin
Silent plotting when to question, like a thief in a cave,
Who publishes doubt & calls it knowledge, whose Science is Despair’
-William Blake, Milton: A Poem-
1. The compulsion to replicate results as a proof, or perhaps a vetting of concept, is a necessary one, bolstering the findings and attendant proofs (where qualified to be viewed as such), and the conclusions reached at that point. The issue rests when the vetters rest on the laurels of the researchers or discoverers, especially when the latter are of or have published in journals or publications of high repute. The assumption then becomes that a thorough scientific methodology was applied without fail when in truth subjectivity and random and systemic error are likely or sometimes rife regardless of the researcher or the methods employed, or better yet assessed. There can be no room for assumption or presumption, down to the very founding observation or objective aim or research question that informs the hypothesis.
2. While knowledge translation is paramount, I fear that in some instances knowledge without informed lessons in research methodology and data acquisition has become a conglomeration of facts to be memorized without adequate application or the means to apply it. It is of essence that knowledge is holistically part of a whole. Rather than an advocate for knowledge, I would instead advocate for “knowing” as an active process, from the incipience of an idea to its current understanding as part of the times, and seeking to append to it by: 1. Examining the question(s) further and across various contexts;
3. Examining its effects on animate and inanimate phenomena where applicable, and finally 3. Considering its evolution across time and context and correlating similarities or dissimilarities to determine if the concept was an all encompassing cohesive one from the beginning, or whether some other association exists and if that points to a forebear or parent concept.
4. As to bridging the gap between science and society, we should recognize that the “lay crowd” is more than capable of understanding complex concepts. After all, every seasoned scientist was a lay student once. Accessible, distilled communication is essential to relay this knowing. Multimedia efforts have greatly convenienced
these efforts in schools and colleges, and they shall not fail the upper echelons of society. The best way to spread awareness is to educate the populace using unequivocal methods.
So don’t say RNA, call it a molecular string ithat yields protein. Don’t call it code but a command string essential in running computer programs. Don’t call it a vaccine. It as a dummy miniature creature that causes the body to react defensively so when the real thing comes along, the body will be ready. These allegories will enforce these notions that would have appeared arcane. And more importantly, when they are subjected to learn about RNA, coding, and vaccines, they’ll have a base concept to refer to.
May our curiosity, compulsion, and intellectual rigor not be stymied by inaccessible concepts. They would stifle our eagerness to learn.
