Academia has it’s own rigorous exacting standards that are upheld by qualified scholars with letters after their name . “Do not pronounce on subjects that you know nothing about.” But is this a disservice to thinkers?
This limitation on thinking reveals, at least to me, a certain flaw. The requirement to have studied and become knowledgeable on a subject, discounts intuitive, insightful or just speculative thought.
Does it means that only thought, extending from previous study is the best truth we have? And does it mean that thought without “the Knowledge” is not true?
And further, does it mean that thought built on what came before, is free from distortion, and not locked within a certain previous framework. Certainly in Science, almost no advance, comes from any direct line of previous enquiry.
In Science, the idea to be free of a past understanding of a thing, is known to be a requirement for discovery. The past in Science is almost always, a block to the future. A good Scientist needs to suspend what they know, so as to see with new eyes.
Yet in Science as with Academia, the past and it’s relevancies are often solidly equated as truth and law. If thought differs from the norm, it is judged against, and penalised.
I believe that it is a mark of great wisdom, to listen to those fresh imaginative minds, with an ear for fresh discovery and the next round of truth making.
Paul
No comments:
Post a Comment