On a regular basis, threads appear in GD discussing various and sundry topics which, after some preliminary jockeying around, devolve into an argument about faith vs. science, belief vs. fact, subjective vs. objective, etc. Not surprisingly, adherents from either camp emerge, a discussion ensues, somebody gets butt hurt, things get testy, and the mods step in to shut it down. The topics which generate these debates are familiar to most and I’d just as soon set them aside.
What is interesting, and perhaps worthy of discussion, is the nature of the knowledge which we possess and how we came to it. Which brings me to the TED talk linked here, in which a neuroscientist from Columbia University, Stuart Firestein, talks about the nature and method of scientific inquiry. For those who follow the types of threads I mentioned previously, his talk is worth the 15 minutes or so. Here’s a link to the TED site where there is also a transcript (http://www.ted.com/talks/stuart_firestein_the_pursuit_of_ignorance)
The speaker also takes a couple of shots at what he refers to as “the bulimic method of education,” in which students are simply given a voluminous amount of information to ingest, regurgitate for the exam, then move onto the next helping of facts. As a consequence, these students never develop the necessary critical thinking skills and intellectual curiosity to focus on asking the next question as opposed to just spitting out the required answer.
Anyway, I found it worthwhile. I also find discussions more worthwhile when participants are predisposed to acknowledging their areas of ignorance and doubt, as opposed to being so cocksure of themselves and their respective dogma. A healthy dose of intellectual, theological, philosophical, epistemological, ontological, pick-your-own-ical humility can go a long ways towards personal growth and productive dialogue.