Re: Wishing I took physics
it's not that it's gratifying, really.
like philosophers, scientists seek the truth. there are unexplained things in this universe that arouse questions, and philosophers and physicists are trying to find the answers to those questions. philosophers do it with logic and reasoning, while scientists use experimental facts. in the end, what they want is the same thing, THE TRUTH.
if it is gratifying, it would be for discovering the truth, not for proving whatever is already established to be wrong.
i think it's pretty frightening, instead of gratifying. if, say, one day, a scientist discovers the experimental evidence that god does not exist. fact. consistent. proven both mathematically and observatory. do you think he would run around screaming eureka? he'll withhold it for himself and it won't be until a few years later that the public hears about this. i mean, this scientist basically has more than half of the people in the world going against him. and if this example about god is too extreme, what about if the scientist discovers a way to create life? what about if the scientist discovers a power greater than the H-bomb that could wipe out an entire island without trace? it would be terrifying, rather than gratifying, for him.
aside from that, in the scientific community, controversial ideas that defies a well-established believe, usually do not survive for long. string theory, which is now the best theory physicists ever come up with to unify all 4 forces of nature, were turned down and rejected as being completely ridiculous when it first came out. it took a couple tries and support from many other scientists before it could become as elegant as it is now. so the bottomline is, it's not all that gratifying to prove something well-established wrong. =/
man, i wish it were that gratifying. =)
like philosophers, scientists seek the truth. there are unexplained things in this universe that arouse questions, and philosophers and physicists are trying to find the answers to those questions. philosophers do it with logic and reasoning, while scientists use experimental facts. in the end, what they want is the same thing, THE TRUTH.
if it is gratifying, it would be for discovering the truth, not for proving whatever is already established to be wrong.
i think it's pretty frightening, instead of gratifying. if, say, one day, a scientist discovers the experimental evidence that god does not exist. fact. consistent. proven both mathematically and observatory. do you think he would run around screaming eureka? he'll withhold it for himself and it won't be until a few years later that the public hears about this. i mean, this scientist basically has more than half of the people in the world going against him. and if this example about god is too extreme, what about if the scientist discovers a way to create life? what about if the scientist discovers a power greater than the H-bomb that could wipe out an entire island without trace? it would be terrifying, rather than gratifying, for him.
aside from that, in the scientific community, controversial ideas that defies a well-established believe, usually do not survive for long. string theory, which is now the best theory physicists ever come up with to unify all 4 forces of nature, were turned down and rejected as being completely ridiculous when it first came out. it took a couple tries and support from many other scientists before it could become as elegant as it is now. so the bottomline is, it's not all that gratifying to prove something well-established wrong. =/
man, i wish it were that gratifying. =)
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home