I was having a sociable brew with our I.T. bod the other day at work and initially we touched on subjects like the inability of people to accurately and fully describe cyber-problems via telephone and the binary definition of what a gigabyte actually is but as it progressed we got round to the subject of people's general perception of what computers could and could not do.
Following from this we came round to the idea that the general publics perception of many aspects of science and technology are in many cases ill-informed but this is not necessarily the full picture.
We discussed that through the media, specifically television and the internet, a blurring of boundaries has occurred in which fiction and fact are now inextricably intertwined.
I would like to say that such exploration of fiction (ostensibly science based) is by no means a bad thing but many assume a general progression from fiction to fact.
However, it is my speculation that there exists a more bidirectional relationship between the two states.
Perhaps that is why such 'woo' ideas (ghosts, alien visitations) are so strongly perpetuated?
Is there any evidence to suggest that people are more likely to believe in alternative ideas nowadays compared to earlier periods in time?
Is it a case that now people are 'better informed' such fringe ideas have become more acceptable?
Your inputs are appreciated.
Regards
Median
If anything I think it's the opposite. Go back a few hundred years and every single person on the planet believed in woo. Atheism was practically unknown, medicine was almost solely quackery, alchemy was thought to work, and so on. I think the main reason we notice the extent of woo nowadays is because there is actually an alternative to compare it to.
Of course, the type of woo has changed a lot. Where it used to be all witchcraft and magic, now it's UFOs and quantum. This doesn't mean technology is actually causing the woo though, it just means people are transferring their woo from traditional things to technological ones.
It could also be a backlash against a decadent and culturally bereft society maybe? People feel the need to believe in something?
Isn't it more likely that there is now, due to the dreaded science, so much information about that some people can't handle it and so, unable to build a world-view on all this confusing data, they build one on something that is simpler and more comfortable?
Other people have some vague faith in 'science' and, as they don't understand most of it, can be persuaded by a plausible rogue who can string together some rubbish that sounds impressively 'scientific'.
PS Apologies if resurrecting this old thread offends - I lost my links and have only just returned to this board!
I think you're right, Steve. This may be off at a bit of a tangent, but there is a tendency which seems to be common and is dangerous. People demand simple understandable answers to everything, and are annoyed or frustrated when they aren't forthcoming. Fair enough. But I think sometimes there is a perception that if a proposition cannot be explained in layman's terms, then the proposition itself is worthless.
Speaking only for myself- and bear in mind I was never a raving woo- I'd say I was unsatisfied with the inanities of life. Technology has made us (in the West) very comfortable. We are spoiled rotten, and I quickly got bored and disillusioned by the consumerism and shallowness I perceived. I also grew up with environmental concerns at the forefront of my mind- the hole in the ozone layer, Chernobyl, Exxon Valdez, Bhopal.
So technology and science seemed to me to bring shallowness and destruction. Add that to teenage rebellion, idealism, naive political beliefs- and you've got a vegan anti-capitalist protester eating organic sprouts and teaching herself herbalism.
What did modern life have to offer that had any heart?
Good music (more of it available in recorded form than ever before, thanks to the dreaded technology). Good writing (libraries are free, before they're all turned into internet cafes). Good films (not necessarily big-budget). It's there.
Personally, I find the most upsetting aspect of modern life is the unending flood of what could superficially be called "heart", but is really puerile sentimentality or casual hatred.
I can recommend a great book which I've just read: How We Know What Isn't So by Thomas Gilovich, subtitled The Fallibility of Human Reason in Everyday Life.
I know that I haven't posted here for long enough to post external links, but I've written a long review of the book on my SFF blog at //sciencefictionfantasy.blogspot.com/ so I hope the moderator will forgive me...
We seem all very agreeable on this thread! I am reminded of that observation by Donald Runsfeld about the meaning of knowledge - we can distinguish in our minds pretty easily (excusing some readers of 'The Da Vinci Code') between things intended to be fictional and things we 'know' are facts. It's something we learn as very young children.
But then fiction, we say, can contain truths (this may come as a surprise to some science graduates who fail to see the point of studying literature) and is used very often to convey important messages about morality, ethics, relationships and the wider mores of our society.
The problem comes with things that are 'made up' but are presented as 'fact' (fictional facts as opposed to truths in fiction) - this might be the collected works of Erik Von Daniken, the Koran or Richard Dawkins works on atheism. Especially when superficially these works contain many verifiable facts.
No points for guessing where this is going...I think you meant to say the Bible instead of Richard Dawkins there.Originally Posted by Tim the Mage
I meant precisely (and was precise in) what I posted. The 'God Delusion' is a fine and convincing book but falls specifically into the category I described.
I am however bemused by the first part of your post? Going where?
You include the Koran in your final list, but omit the Bible, when surely they are both equally guilty of presenting fiction as fact?
Where specifically in the God Delusion do you think the author presents fiction as fact?
Agreed - as is the Book of Mormon, the Bhagavad Gita, etc. Dawkins argues for the non-existence of God and fails to prove it but still concludes God's non-existence which puts him in the same box as those who believe in the resurrection or other parts of religious mumbo-jumbo.
I perhaps chose examples in the interests of contraversialism rather than clarity but my central point was that it is rather harder than we think to discriminate between truth and fiction but rather more easy to distinguish between fact and what is made up.
Since we should be acting in the manner of the apostle Thomas by seeking verifiable proof, there is a difference. My point about the study of literature tried to point out the difference between "truth" and "fact".
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks