After all, I'm working towards a Doctor of Philosophy! But, I have done this before, in my bachelors - here. And I came across a similar post, though oriented more to why Spirituality is sidelined - here (Thanks Priya!). Firstly, I'd like to commend the author for the impartial stand he's taken. A fairly well written article. I just wanted to note a few points, more for myself than anyone else.
Though I do agree that we are all inquisitive by nature, I definitely wouldn't say that the purpose is only a by-product and not the aim of inquiry. In fact, it would be a self-contradicting statement to say that the cause is a result! The example cited -that Technology is a by-product of Science, and not the reason for Science - is totally anachronistic. It was true at the early years of the development of Science - when people were asking 'why the sky is blue, why the sun rises and sets, why trees grow, why there are so many species around us, why eclipses occur'. But once man started answering some of these questions, the control freak within himself was awoken. And since he had started to understand some of the things around him, he wanted to control them, and thus was born Technology. And today, leaving out a few scientists who are not bothered about what the rest of the world is interested in, it is definitely true that Technology is driving Science, and is not a mere result of our inquisitiveness. Defining Technology broadly as man's use of things around him to help himself would allow us to see that man's discoveries weren't always because of his inquisitiveness. Many were also serendipitous, like discovering fire. The reason I am agitated is that the author compares Technology to Religion, implicitly, when he says Technology is a result of Science and Religions are a result of Spiritual inquisition and Science and Spiritual inquisition are two faces of the same coin. Though I believe in the latter, I would consider it sacrilegious to even speak of Technology and Religion as being comparable.
The comparison between learning the external world, and learning one's mind, the two complementary inquiries into reality, is neatly done. I completely agree with most of it...
Though I do agree that we are all inquisitive by nature, I definitely wouldn't say that the purpose is only a by-product and not the aim of inquiry. In fact, it would be a self-contradicting statement to say that the cause is a result! The example cited -that Technology is a by-product of Science, and not the reason for Science - is totally anachronistic. It was true at the early years of the development of Science - when people were asking 'why the sky is blue, why the sun rises and sets, why trees grow, why there are so many species around us, why eclipses occur'. But once man started answering some of these questions, the control freak within himself was awoken. And since he had started to understand some of the things around him, he wanted to control them, and thus was born Technology. And today, leaving out a few scientists who are not bothered about what the rest of the world is interested in, it is definitely true that Technology is driving Science, and is not a mere result of our inquisitiveness. Defining Technology broadly as man's use of things around him to help himself would allow us to see that man's discoveries weren't always because of his inquisitiveness. Many were also serendipitous, like discovering fire. The reason I am agitated is that the author compares Technology to Religion, implicitly, when he says Technology is a result of Science and Religions are a result of Spiritual inquisition and Science and Spiritual inquisition are two faces of the same coin. Though I believe in the latter, I would consider it sacrilegious to even speak of Technology and Religion as being comparable.
The comparison between learning the external world, and learning one's mind, the two complementary inquiries into reality, is neatly done. I completely agree with most of it...
No comments:
Post a Comment