Mysteries are fascinating things. And without mysteries are no scholars, and sometimes some people tell a joke that scholars are behind some mysteries because we want to keep our jobs.
Jokes are a good argument for crushing researchers. Press introduced Charles Darwin as a monkey when he introduced the evolution theory. That thing was very nice because a couple of hundred years earlier that man would burn on the bonfire.
The best receipt is that tell people that all mysteries are urban legends, and then after that, some jokes about the researcher's mental health make an impression.
If we follow that track, we face the argument: humans invented all things, that we can. And we don't need anything new. And everything that we can find is found. So that's why we don't need any new things. We can solve all things by taking assault rifles in our hands and that's it. If there is some Big Foot in the forest we can shoot it. And there is no BigFoot anymore. But does that remove the mystery?
Maybe that thing is right. Or maybe, it's wrong. But when we are looking at a mystery, we must research one thing. We must find out what makes those things mysterious.
If we read some books. That tells about mysteries. We must try, to find out why the writer selected just those certain cases for that book. What category did that writer use? And what is the writer's or document maker's attitude about those things that the person introduces to people?
Does the writer or filmmaker leave space for the audience? That they can make their conclusions? And does the storyteller offer them a chance to discuss and talk about their opinions? Or is the story's purpose just to curve the opponent's opinion for some mold that the document maker wants them to get?
When we think of the sad series of researchers that says "certainly that is impossible", we must realize one thing. When people make some conclusions, they must use information. That they have at that precise moment.
The observation tools are advancing, and some things are changing. So we must avoid too strong opinions because if we take some attitude and defend it very strongly we are in a psychological trap.
That trap is that someday we all face the situation that we are wrong. And at that moment, we must say that we are wrong. We know that we should know something. But even if something remains theory let's say about 100 years the new observation tool can prove that theory right or wrong.
When somebody selects a certain path or road and publically tells that thing. There is somehow very difficult to select a new path. Because that requires that our person must confess being wrong. And that is very hard if a person is afraid to lose authority.
Sometimes people misunderstand the difference between leadership and scholarship. They think that scholarship and leadership are the same things. Scholars observe some phenomenon or object and try to make a puzzle and find out what that thing makes and how the parts of the entirety interact. Leaders can use that information, or they can leave that information outside decision-making. That's their business.
Comments
Post a Comment