Posted at 10.16.2018
Often have I seen in my school chemical substance, posters hung and caught, of all sizes shouting out "Never be afraid to ask questions" followed by a fully fledged songs about the importance of asking questions in category. It is noticeable that people wouldn't trouble even keep in mind having seen the poster, hadn't the main of our university taken the effort of announcing that there surely is such a poster devote every category
But my point here is not about our effort to learn the poster, but to comprehend why it's been put. Somewhat why it's been posted in every grade of the school, beginning with nursery itself? What's so special about requesting questions day in and day out without reason?
I asked my professors, of every stream and subject matter, my parents, and they had just one last baseline for and answer 'Without questioning, you won't ever learn. It really is curiosity that leads to knowledge. ' 'Now, how would curiosity lead to knowledge?'- I asked myself. I did get a remedy immediately saying-'why it shouldn't? What happens when you get caught up in a question which is a little wayward from your syllabus course? If you had the courage to question in category without feeling uncomfortable about any of it, the tutor would surely have found a way of combining two or more formulas which would solve it, and a barrier would be cracked, for now you would have gained the knowledge if tackling such sums and they're of no stress nowadays'
Now if we consider it at the example through the idea of knowledge viewpoint, we would now be talking about the area of understanding of individual sciences, as relating the normal human habit of interest and uncertainty, with the partnership of getting knowledge by breaking this internal barrier of uncertainty, or sometimes, recognizing the incorrect results that may have protruded with the same mannerisms of hesitation. Quite simply we'd be working with the next knowledge concern:
Taking the example talked about in the last page for case. I DOUBTED the situation, quite simply I couldn't relate my knowledge to the situation, which is a common human patterns. Whilst I'd never ask to the educators or in class due to pure concern about my position among my environment being snatched away from me; this being my APPROACH towards my uncertainty. Hence if my methodology towards the doubt is negative and conserved in aspect form the 1st step, how am I supposed to gain knowledge to deal with the question?. . . .
This is in the same way applicable to not only an individual level but also in the wider point of view of real life. If we look through the pages of past incidents, happenings, whether the event be considered a cause for interpersonal reform, or the evaluation of more knowledge towards understanding the physics of the world, both have advanced from some procedure towards existing knowledge. It really is a very basic point for observation, that no knowledge is improved until the existing knowledge isn't questioned. We never recognized the formulation of E = mc2 in grade six, until and unless whenever we get the chance to studying the chapter of specific radioactivity in class twelve, where we learn that 'm' means mass defect and 'c' means velocity of light. This contributes to another question of the derivation of the method, which we learn about in college or universityand so on
What I designed to say through the first example is that when we deal with an primary knowledge and take it to analysis, is when we start to learn more about the knowledge, which we perhaps never dreamt of learning, and on the other hand another method of the same knowledge, and another enlargement; this string is endless
If we learn about the milestones in sciences, such as groundwork of Newtonian physics and the development of gravity, have all rise from the fact that Newton doubted the apple that fell over his mind, and considered how items jerk forward, when ended from motion.
Scientists like Nicolas Copernicus and Galileo too, doubted the machine of the Earth, reason being that their processed knowledge form their environment that point travelled against their ethics. Because of them that we do not consider Earth as flat nowadays
Even looking at the field of real human sociology, it offers always explained humans as "the only path a individuals differentiates itself from the pet kingdom, is their ability to think and reason". The only reason we start to see the world to accept changes, and change form development to progression, is because of the human potential to question every single action of what we do.
To describe the previous paragraph more evidently, would give us the solution of the second question. Taking concrete illustrations from research by branches of public sciences, one of the most appropriate instances could be the revolutions that contain taken place leading to change of the political viewpoint of men and women across the world. The first example could be the renaissance, where the people doubted the cathedral, gained knowledge about the real lifestyle of humans, hence the result of the development of research as the second form of God.
A second illustration could be the politics changeover form monarchy to democracy, where revolutionists like Jean-Jac-Rousseau of the French revolution, Lenin of the Russian trend, even personalities like Mohandas Karmachand Gandhi, or Martin Luther Ruler Jr. , are all equal types of humans who doubted the surroundings around them, judged the reality which travelled against their ethics, not necessarily for the intended purpose of gaining knowledge. However in the process of question, have opened entrances of knowledge of more folks -oriented politics, an understanding which the world resides today
But it must be known that this also doesn't thin right down to such technical specs that uncertainty is the only path of enhancing knowledge. There are plenty of circumstances where knowledge was found either by coincidence, or accidentally, such as taking the finding of the first dinosaur fossil fuel, leading to a whole new dimension of the incident of any prehistoric era, or the event of the first democracy, that is, in Rome, that was sure not through the event of any hesitation, it was just a sheer requirement.
In other words, we can not declare that the great inventions as any approach or a doubt towards knowledge. It is merely a finding. Similarly we can't declare all the possible revolutions of the world to occur form absolute hostile approach to an existing authorities.
Equally it doesn't really mean that way of knowledge is the only possible way to attain knowledge. Never. There are numerous instances, which individual science itself proves that doubt isn't the only nesseccary action for getting close to knowledge. For umpteen, years, around just lately in middle 90's, scientists started to doubt the living of God itself, and went on so far, concerning publish in THE DAYS cover page, declaring God doesn't exist, and a new knowledge of the life of the higher being is usually to be obtained. It was shortly until one month onwards; the same newspaper shared another cover page, declaring "GOD IS BACK". Nothing at all significantly less than mere mockery in the name of God, simply for the sake of demonstrating a standard man a scientist has doubted a theory, signifying a fresh knowledge to sprout. Well, it in the end led to nothing at all else but ill-respect of the declarer.
Hence it might be very important to comprehend that our method of knowledge is in charge of the augmentation of knowledge. But it is not the only way to enhance knowledge. Question is a way, but this method will lead to limited enhancement of knowledge, not a deep-root of the data which humans want to obtain.
"Chariot of the gods?" by Enrik Von Daniken
"The Prince" by Machiavelli