Education xOr Knowledge
A: An amount of knowledge in itself can hardly be a proof of anything. Besides, there is only one thing that a modern schoolboy knows for sure: all of his life he will be surrounded by people who have a 'right' to demand obedience. In school he is supposed to listen to a teacher; at home — to his parents; in college — to faculty; in the army — to an officer; at work — to his boss. He is supposed to memorize that anyone who is older is implicitly more knowledgeable or even more intelligent. Isn't it strange: nobody bothers to teach kids that knowledgeable, intelligent and older have nothing in common with good.
A modern day schoolboy hands his ability to know in to a ministry of education. Still more ironic: his parents do it for him. Instead of knowing anything first hand he absorbs pre-digested opinions of teachers, older friends, parents, bosses. This is why medieval scholars knew less — they wanted to know themselves. They had been driving every little piece of experience through their brain and heart. Only after this kind of procedure an accumulated report can turn into knowledge.
Our education pursues the opposite goal: to hammer into existence another smooth little taxpayer, who will necessarily trust somebody and won't ever ask questions; to create someone who has no desire to find out. Our learning is pure conditioning, we are not taught to know. Instead, we are taught to support a static set of age-old opinions so that after school we become suitable teachers for further generations. Progress is not forbidden, but skillfully excluded from this circuit.
A: We should be grateful for everything but the knowledge, because we know nothing. Our mentors were trying their best to convince us (and themselves) that we know something, but it is not true. Why do we think that Northern and Southern Americas are separate continents? How can we know that Earth is round? Why do we believe that there are 60 minutes in an hour and 8 bits in a byte? Why should we believe that the universe is this or that old? How are we supposed to know that God does not want our boys to be circumcised (or does want if he is a Jew or an Arab)? We don't and we can't know anything of these. Since your birth you have been told again and again that this is the way it is. We are merely trained to think so. However, there is no proof to any of these statements. The 'proofs' that we have are only assumptions built on some other assumptions.
The most amazing thing, however, is that we don't need any of these descriptions. We can be completely happy each with her own decisions made here and now, based on her own experience no matter how small. Frankly, we don't need to know the distance between the Sun and ourselves to notice this star or enjoy the daylight.
Our education would be good if it taught us to continue asking "Why?" till death. It should teach children to look for answers themselves and never be ashamed to say "I don't know". The existing education looks like a compilation of ready-made answers, but who said they are correct? Next generations will definitely sneer at our breakthroughs and learning just the way we sneer at those guys who thought the Earth to be a disc placed on the three whales — so what's the point in teaching something that is for sure wrong or incomplete? Education teaches nothing but conformity.
A: The Nobel Prize is given away by regular mortals who think that they create science. They value certain research fields more — that's it. Neither you, nor any of your first-hand acquaintances will ever have a chance to select candidates for this award. We know nothing of the Nobel Committee motives.
We all have a more or less the same notion of scientific progress — the notion created in school and refreshed by the mass-media on a daily basis. Imagine the vast majority of scientists whose names and accomplishments are unfamiliar to us because they don't show up in Stockholm or on TV. Again, a handful of people are deciding what is good and what is unnecessary for science; they decide who works for or against 'the good of humankind' or at least for 'the good of the nation'. The Nobel Prize itself is not a proof of anything, exactly the way those magic letters after the name are not. They are of the same nature as shoulder straps.
However, true scientists do exist. They are such not due to, but in spite of the social encouragement. Says Einstein: "The only thing that interferes with my learning is my education". Among researchers that we know nothing about there is Rupert Sheldrake. No wonder if you have never heard of him — he is pushing science elsewhere from that tiny lot of imagination, where humans have already tried everything. But his work does not comply with the conventional science guidelines — therefore Sheldrake's experiments will hardly earn him the notorious scientific Oscar. This does not mean that Sheldrake is a useless scientist — it means that there is some measure of good and bad in science.
A: There is no need for scientists to expand our borders. We can get rid of any border once and for good. Wouldn't it be much fresher without age-old scheme of proving every idea to those above you? Wouldn't it be far more relaxed without people who close or open the doors in front of you guided by whether they can understand your reasons or not? Isn't it strange that you need to have some pundit agree with you before sharing your veiws with everyone?
Proving your point means that you want
In the first case, you are as if apologizing for having a new or different thought. You are expected to demonstrate your compatibility with the rest of the society. Society as an organism has only two definitions for its elements: suitable or not. Therefore, it checks its integrity every now and then. Some people (professors, for example) act on behalf of the intangible society. They must make sure that you arrived to your conclusion strictly along the accepted guidelines, so that others can follow you. Society is a mass of common denominators. Everything that equalizes you and your neighbor is good for the society, where no one is irreplaceable. Everything that distinguishes is a threat. Our pyramidal society is alive as long as its elements are similar, and it wants to live forerver.
However, a fluid society consisting of independent individuals is more fascinating and productive than the existing one; it flatly has no barriers and no definitions. Our society is an extremely inert body, composed of rigid hierarchies, where a tiny percent of people decide what should (not) happen.
Free society is a voluntary and volatile union, based on respect and true interest. There is no place for politics or politeness, both stemming from the same concept of deceit. Everyone is allowed to think and say what s/he pleases: if Jack believes that Earth is shaped as a prism — he is welcome; if Mary thinks she is a snail - no problem. Your notions don't hurt anyone — everyone is free to perceive the world the way s/he does. If s/he gets bored, s/he can always get up and leave to search for other communities with new, incredible and suitable descriptions.
Have you ever met a color-blind person? You can't prove to him that grey is grey if s/he sees it pink. So what? Does anyone in the entire creation suffer from it? Do you suffer? If John believes that stars are small holes in a black blanket, will you lose anything? It will not ruin your house, it will not jerk the land from beneath your feet, your salary wil not shrink. Your world will not shatter. You have no reason in the universe to care about how others see things. Now imagine that you are this John, and be happy to know that your vision does not cause harm to anyone.
The second aim of proving, to persuade someone, is good if you are an aspiring politician or a militant type — anyone who thinks s/he knows better than others. These guys are but manifestations of the present society, which wants to keep on living. Sober-minded persons will first of all care about remaining true to their own Selves. They will do what they need to even if nobody in the world follows them.
So, as you most probably have already guessed, proofs and demonstrations are aimed at keeping the world on a leash. They are good for the society, not for individuals. You don't need to prove anything to anyone, nor should you demand anyone to prove his/her point to you. Whenever you face something new, your first reaction is true — later you only find appropriate reasonable grounds for it. If we do want to expand our horizons, then modern-day science, based on logics and reasoning, should give way to unrestricted thought.
Think for a moment about an institution called Academy of Sciences. It's just another bureaucratic institution designed to filter thoughts and dispense money. Its very existence means that science is constantly governed (like any other business); that people like you and me keep deciding what science may or may not be. We appoint these people to think instead of us. By doing this we deny ourselves the chance to witness something completely new, because we restrict all the world's imagination to that of the appointed supervisors. What they will approve of, will be science. What they won't — won't.
It is true, scientists are free to research, but they are free within fairly narrow passage. Just like a guinea pig is free to turn left or right within the walls of the same old maze. Is there any research today that can be performed without money? How can we know what kind of research is rejected by those who are willing to sponsor some other research? Science serves those who can afford themselves to order specific breakthroughs.
Universities are sometimes pompously referred to as "temples of science". Doesn't it lead to conclusion that a scientist is a priest, and along with orthodox views there are heresies? You see, with all our science around, the distance separating us from the Inquisition is not as significant as we would like to think.