I first asked myself:
If know that I do not know everything then how do I know that what I know is right?
I then asked myself:
What is common between Science and Art?
I then realised that the answer to both questions was the same.
Wednesday, January 6, 2010
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I'm just confused by this post. I've been wandering and wondering for awhile now and questions are a'brewin ... enlighten me:
What, I guess summed up, would you be questioning the "right-ness" of? And does a history of knowledge (from what you've seen in science and art, for example) relate to how you might know the answer if you knew everything (science, art, the "truth")?
Or are you comparing what you know to art?
What are the answers JD?!
In the first question I am referring to empirical knowledge. "Facts" that I know. The right-ness is if these facts are correct or not. We have theories to explain many many things, but any of these could be undermined by a new observation. For example, the theory of gravity, it is theorized that gravity is a force caused by the "bending" of space-time which is caused by large mass. But what would we do if we found something of tremendous mass that caused no gravity? In this case, either our observation is missing something, or our theory is wrong. If we had made every observation possible and remembered them all, then we could know for sure if our theories are correct or not.
I am unable to just tell you the answer, that is why I presented it in this way.
Post a Comment