Fire and Knowledge

Not every branch of science can foretell the future—paleontology can’t—but many can and with stunning accuracy. If you want to know when the next eclipse of the Sun will be, you might try magicians or mystics, but you’ll do much better with scientists. They will tell you where on Earth to stand, when you have to be there, and whether it will be a partial eclipse, a total eclipse, or an annular eclipse. They can routinely predict a solar eclipse, to the minute, a millennium in advance.

You can go to the witch doctor to lift the spell that causes your pernicious anemia, or you can take vitamin B12. If you want to save your child from polio, you can pray or you can inoculate. If you’re interested in the sex of your unborn child, you can consult plumb-bob danglers all you want (left-right, a boy; forward-back, a girl—or maybe it’s the other way around), but they’ll be right, on average, only one time in two. If you want real accuracy (here, 99 percent accuracy), try amniocentesis and sonograms. Try science.

Think of how many religions attempt to validate themselves with prophecy. Think of how many people rely on these prophecies, however vague, however unfulfilled, to support or prop up their beliefs. Yet has there ever been a religion with the prophetic accuracy and reliability of science? There isn’t a religion on the planet that doesn’t long for a comparable ability—precise, and repeatedly demonstrated before committed skeptics—to foretell future events. No other human institution comes close.

Is this worshipping at the altar of science? Is this replacing one faith by another, equally arbitrary? In my view, not at all. The directly observed success of science is the reason I advocate its use. If something else worked better, I would advocate something else.

—Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World (Ballantine Books: 1995), p. 30.

My final and perhaps my best reason for not owning a computer is that I do not wish to fool myself. I disbelieve, and therefore strongly resent, the assertion that I or anybody else could write better or more easily with a computer than with a pencil. I do not see why I should not be as scientific about this as the next fellow: when somebody has used a computer to write work that is demonstrably better than Dante’s, and when this better is demonstrably attributable to the use of a computer, then I will speak of computers with a more respectful tone of voice, though I still will not buy one.

—Wendell Berry, “Why I Am Not Going to Buy a Computer” in What Are People For? (1990), p. 171.

Steve Hargadon argues that Web 2.0 is the future of education. I disagree. Of course it will influence and change education to some extent, but will it be the future of education? Unlikely.

Steve says Web 2.0 will help move education “from formal schooling to lifelong learning.” People have been devoted to lifelong learning long before the Internet. The Internet does make some information easier to retrieve, but many people do not take advantage of this, just as many people didn’t take advantage of books on their shelves. I’m not convinced the Internet is going to change this too much. Hopefully I’m wrong here, though, because it would be great if more people were interested in lifelong learning.

I took a quick look at Classroom 2.0, which Steve recommended for learning about education and Web 2.0. On the homepage was a teacher asking this question:

I’m looking for a new project for my (online) students in an Ancient Civilizations class to deomostrate their knowledge of the material we’ve been learning. They’ve written numerous blogs, they’ve created PowerPoints, and I’ve offered podcasting or videos( but haven’t had too many students intersested in in these). I was thinking of a comic strip project to where the students show how the geography of the area has played a very important role in determining how the society developed and what technologies evolved. I’m having trouble finding a comic strip generator that students can use their own clip art or has appropriate pictures for this assignment. Anyone have a suggestion? or other ideas for web 2.0 projects for this class.

Now it would be hard for me to find a better demonstration for my skepticism. This is a teacher for “gifted” students. She misspells demonstrate and interested. She’s having her students write “numerous blogs,” which I assume she means blog posts, which I assume must be something like very short, undemanding essays. And a comic strip generator? Good God. Has it really come to this?

This is, in essence, a teacher asking how to do the basics of teaching. How can your students demonstrate their knowledge of a subject? You have them write papers and debate with other students. You ask them questions. Yes, there are creative ways to have them learn. But if you want them to create a comic strip, you can have them draw it on paper. But, alas, that doesn’t have very much to do with Web 2.0 and flashy websites and cool technology.

Can Web 2.0 help education? Possibly. But it can also hinder it, as we see with the teacher’s question above. I suppose teachers really exist who are having their students mess around with comic strip generators and powerpoint and podcasts instead of writing and reading and debating. And I thought I got a lousy education.

So I don’t think the future of education is Web 2.0. I don’t think nifty websites can replace the classroom, reading classics, writing essays, memorizing, debating ideas, doing painstaking research, or running experiments.

How many beliefs could a perfect brain check for logical contradictions? The answer is surprising. Even if a computer were as large as the known universe, built of components no larger than protons, with switching speeds as fast as the speed of light, all laboring in parallel from the moment of the big bang up to the present, it would still be fighting to add a 300th belief to its list. What does this say about the possibility of our ever guaranteeing that our worldview is perfectly free from contradiction? It is not even a dream within a dream.

—Sam Harris, The End of Faith: Religion, Terror, and the Future of Reason (W. W. Norton, 2004), p. 57.

How in the world did wikipedia — a seemingly anarchic encyclopedia — become one of the top ten visited websites? “The Charms of Wikipedia” explains.

The Intellectual Devotional seems like a great way to learn something new each day from a different discipline. Here’s the blurb:

Millions of Americans keep bedside books of prayer and meditative reflection—collections of daily passages to stimulate spiritual thought and advancement. The Intellectual Devotional is a secular version of the same—a collection of 365 lessons that will inspire and invigorate the reader every day of the year. Each nugget of wisdom is drawn from one of seven fields of knowledge: History, Literature, Philosophy, Mathematics & Science, Religion, Visual Arts, and Music.

Openness emerges when two or more individuals become willing to suspend their certainty in each other’s presence. They become willing to share their thinking and are susceptible to having their thinking influenced by one another. And … in a state of openness, they gain access to depths of understanding not accessible otherwise.

–Peter Senge, The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization (1990), p. 284.

Teachers and students of literature and philosophy don’t learn how to be good and wise; they learn how to analyze literary effects and to distinguish between different accounts of the foundations of knowledge.

–Stanley Fish, “Will the Humanities Save Us?“