MOHAMMAD JARRAHI: February 2008 Archives

Wells, as a gifted fiction writer, takes the reader through an adventurous exploration from the ancient time through the Roman Empire to middle ages and more modern time.  “The outline of history “is probably one of the most comprehensive accounts of the subject matter written to date. Particularly his interpretation of ancient religions and the way they were being utilized by dominant power captured my attention.

The point that he raises about the deficit of Roman Republic, namely lack of a religious idea behind the state, sounds quite noble.  Wells holds that in spite of its huge size, the Roman Republic suffered from limitations set upon the possibilities of a community of knowledge. Scholars like Aristotle could form their own community of aristocrats where very few disciples were able to receive education. So this kind of system was unable to deliver a ubiquitous sort of knowledge and education for a mass of people. In contrast, religions could cross the boundaries and address “multitudes of diverse men together in common enterprises.” What I believe we can add to this line of reasoning is the strength of religions to address spiritual needs of humans which could be left out by most of scientific and worldly alternatives. For instance the very nature of man is prone toward an almighty and vigorous entity upon which he wishes to rely particularly when he is plagued with hardships. As such a state also needs to fill this spiritual void using something of that sort.  Wells states that the church provided the Roman Republic with a system of popular teaching, exactly what the state had lacked. This was brought about by a number of universities and methods of intellectual inter-communication. In addition, by looking carefully at other historical account, one can concluded that the Roman monarch has gone beyond what is pointed out by Wells, and harnessed the potential of the religion in the quest of legitimacy.  Constantine, as the first Christian Roman Emperor embarked on Christianity to consolidate his power while it was being threatened by an uncontrolled and rapid upsurge of Christianity. What he did in Council of Nicaea was simply jumping on bandwagon of the religion and transforming it from a threat to an opportunity.

The article that I found echoes Well’s argument on the important role that religions can undertake in political arenas. It states that even though philosophical schools of thought had strived to dispense with metaphysics including a vast majority of religious beliefs over the 20^th century, the religion has never lost ground and never gone away. This is in sharp contrast with the prediction of many scholars who were seeing religion being marginalized. But as I mentioned before, due to intrinsic popularity of religions; it is almost possible witnessing such a departure. But the main point here is that today the religions are employed as instruments in a lot of power struggles.  This article puts forth that lots of struggle particularly in middle east take a religious guise; and this make them extremely difficult to solve. To this end, I believe that in a modern society there are still a lot of holes to be filled by metaphysics and religions.

Another interesting point he touched upon is the industrial manufacture of paper. Although the history has witnessed a substantial number of influential technologies, the invention of printing and paper technologies seem like focal points. These innovations have enabled human to record things particularly scientific discoveries so that the knowledge could be shared in much easier manners. Given the limitations of communicative means, this has facilitated dissemination of knowledge from one generation to another and from one region to another one.   In addition, it is germane to expansion of knowledge, insofar as this turned books from a luxury good to a more accessible thing.  In this way, knowledge could surpass boundaries of elitist circles and find its way to other classes of society.  

On the flip side I believe the trajectory of Well’s argument in this chapter seems a bit arbitrary; I guess he was to convey a great deal of historical fact, but all these stories are presented at the expense of the main conclusion. In addition, I believe sometimes his claims seem too bold particularly when he is judging individuals. For example, when it comes the contention around Machiavelli’s intention, Wells audaciously contends that Machiavelli had not belief in any righteous altogether.

 
Reference:

http://www.economist.com/opinion/displayStory.cfm?Story_ID=10063829

The Asimov’s chapter on the science gives an interesting account of the evolution that science has undergone. It holds that the science has developed not only for sake of its application in everyday life. But also, the man’s curiosity has compelled him to pursue knowledge for its own sake. Then he turns to philosophical foundations upon which the evolution has rested. In this regard he elaborates on the long-standing discourse between deductive way of reasoning and its inductive counterpart.

What I found particularly interesting in Asimove’s writing, is his final recommendation regarding the future direction of science in the last part of his essay. He believes that the development of science in the modern society has not been free of detrimental side effects. He particularly focuses on the damage that has been done to nature (destruction of Earth’ crust). Paradoxically his concern has not only faded away but has heightened in the early 21st century. He also suggests that the black box of modern science has to be opened up for non-scientists. The main argument is if the emerging gap between the scientific community and the public diminishes many of the destructive consequences of modern inventions or advances in science can be avoided. This requires the scientist to explain their field of study as simple as possible, and the non-scientist accepts the responsibility of listening.

The paper I found, bears a close relationship with Asimov’s mentioned as a solution to detrimental effects of science.  Leggett and Finlay (2001) reports on an initiative to overcome the barrier to effective communication which posed by scientific jargon and technical language. They contend that the modern life is over dependent on fossil fuel consumption. Scientific community would fail to turn the problem unless public understanding of the issue is raised. So the study has been concerned with questions like “how does the general public conceptualize differences between energy from fossil fuel sources and renewable energy? Do they see renewable energy as a viable alternative, a way of living on our energy income rather than our capital, or do they see it as a return to the dark ages?”

In order to investigate the above mentioned question, they have strived to delve into the ways people make sense of conflicting information from multiple sources. They design an interesting experiment within which the individuals communicated with peers where no technical jargon with regard to subject matter (the energy industry) was needed. The participant drew on pictures or storytelling to express their impression, opinion or hunch.  To this end they were able to convey more effectively their tacit knowledge or unconscious meanings. The study concludes that most of members of public have concerns and personal experiences concerning renewable energy, but the technical jargons and formal language put bounds to effective communication of these ideas.  Additionally, the researcher maintains that the kind of techniques employed in their experiment can afford participants with the freedom to explore their own understanding and express their agendas through their own language.

References:

Leggett M R and Findlay M 2001 Science, story, and image: a new approach to crossing the communication barrier posed by scientific jargon Public Understand. Sci. 10 157–71