02-11-2014, 12:32 AM
(02-11-2014, 12:21 AM)Tanner Wrote:(02-10-2014, 11:58 PM)Sagittarius Wrote:(02-10-2014, 11:38 PM)xise Wrote:(02-10-2014, 10:48 PM)zenmaster Wrote: If someone is unwilling to learn due to lack of time, then how can they be helped?
I'm not sure you understood what I was trying to say. Modern life almost requires that a non-expert rely or trust experts/scientists because of complexity of modern technology.
It's not realistic to ask everyone in modern society to learn the actual mechanisms, theories, and studies involved in every piece of technology we have or use. That's why we have experts - if everyone understood everything, everyone would be an expert (or no one would be) and that term would have no meaning. Having specialized experts or scientists serves a very real purpose of allowing others to benefit from their discoveries and research without the time needed to learn the concepts involved, so that the saved time can be put into learning things more interesting or important for a given individual (for example - spending time learning lessons of balance instead of digging through studies of MMR Vaccine safety.)
The problems arise when the non-expert considers that reliance or trust of experts in general to be questionable or potentially misplaced in the light of previous bad advice given some particular expert.
Is that not what the purpose of life is ? To become an expert, is an expert not by definition someone largely conscious of what they are doing?. Lessons of balance can be seen in everything, reading statistical studies and learning lessons of balance can consciously become the same thing.
It's ironic when people criticize scientists for being to mechanical when it's actually there own view of science they are unconsciously criticizing.
Is that the same in the opposite manner, with scientists criticizing non-mechanical or spiritual perspectives?
Of course.