Nice to know that Douglas Adams was right about the fundamental connectedness of all things. But you are now making me question whether he was right about being able to power a space ship with the energy created from settling a restaurant bill. Unhelpful.
Does this come partly back to the strengths and weaknesses of science, and the competing views of science as a voyage of discovery versus science as testing hypothesis?
Your early point about how much knowledge matters in day to day life is really profound. Could it be one of the reasons why some societal level problems simply drift unresolved? For any individual the consequences do not appear serious enough to compromise of their beliefs. It doesn't matter whether they are actually serious enough, just that they do not appear serious enough in their day to day living.
I also wonder whether some baser instincts are at play. Our place in society and our power within society often relies on us sitting comfortably within the belief spectrum that currently exists. So called disrupters are not disrupters knowledge but are disrupting the status quo within the range of beliefs.
We will never know but I wonder what might have happened if Semmelweis had described his discovery as an application of miasma rather than a rejection of it. Miasma is affecting the hands of through the agency of bacteria etc. I guess the question is whether there more or less ineffective paths for changing knowledge, given our general rejection of the 'eureka' moment of understanding so beloved of scientists.
Nice to know that Douglas Adams was right about the fundamental connectedness of all things. But you are now making me question whether he was right about being able to power a space ship with the energy created from settling a restaurant bill. Unhelpful.
Does this come partly back to the strengths and weaknesses of science, and the competing views of science as a voyage of discovery versus science as testing hypothesis?
Your early point about how much knowledge matters in day to day life is really profound. Could it be one of the reasons why some societal level problems simply drift unresolved? For any individual the consequences do not appear serious enough to compromise of their beliefs. It doesn't matter whether they are actually serious enough, just that they do not appear serious enough in their day to day living.
I also wonder whether some baser instincts are at play. Our place in society and our power within society often relies on us sitting comfortably within the belief spectrum that currently exists. So called disrupters are not disrupters knowledge but are disrupting the status quo within the range of beliefs.
We will never know but I wonder what might have happened if Semmelweis had described his discovery as an application of miasma rather than a rejection of it. Miasma is affecting the hands of through the agency of bacteria etc. I guess the question is whether there more or less ineffective paths for changing knowledge, given our general rejection of the 'eureka' moment of understanding so beloved of scientists.