Simply Beautiful v. Simply Explainable

In response to Griffin - full post here

Yes, I would imagine that how people react to learning scientific information about something would depend on how they view science. But I think that a more important aspect is how people present the science of that thing.

For example, let us take this flower and pretend that it is red. Some people may look at it and say, "wow, it is red, and it is beautiful." A scientist may come along and say "it only a simply reflection of light." Which sort of belittles the beauty and complexity of the flower. Another scientist could come along and say "Wow, it is beautiful. Light is so complex and amazing, and it's amazing to think about how different wavelengths of light produce different perceptions of colors when they hit the rods and cones in our eyes. It's also amazing that our eyes developed to see the visible wavelengths of light rather than the ultraviolet or infrared wavelengths. Oh Aramark, this is so beautiful and awesome."

Science has answers for many things, but that does not mean that it needs to present everything as simple.

Personally, I enjoy complexity and precision. Knowing the complexity of things, or the work that went in to them helps me to find things more beautiful - I spend more time reflecting on those things that I know more about. I'd rather hear of something's complexity than hear that something is "simply beautiful" or "simply explainable." On the other hand, I think that this is largely a matter personal preference.

Critical Thinking and the Spike of Differences

Many people are inclined to believe that in order for various groups to reach equality, those groups need to promote themselves independently from other groups. For example, there are many clubs and organisations on campus that are established to promote one group's rights - as an example here, we can use the Black Student Union. These kinds of groups work by sponsoring events specific to their groups and excluding other groups. I suppose an example of this is the promotion of Black History Month. The problem with this method is that if we think critically we realize that, while on its face it seems to helps to reach equality, it actually promotes a sort of segregation; it solidifies that idea that there is a important difference between the groups.

Black History Month promotes the idea that people with dark skin are different from those with light skin such that they ought to be distinguished on the basis of their skin color. This promotes that "separate but equal" model of equality; under this model, people separate because of the phenotypic characteristics such as skin color - this is why there still aren't many inter-"racial" couples or groups of friends.

The same thing is true of other groups who operate in this way. For instance, feminists who promote "women's history month" and "stop domestic violence against women," promote the idea that women are different, and worthy of different treatment and recognition on the basis of their sex.

I try to support the idea of "People History Month." That is, a moth that includes important people of history regardless of their various phenotypic characteristics. This way people would be distinguished as being different due to their talents and contributions. I do not mean to say that people are all the same, they certainly are different, but their outward appearances are not reasons to distinguish people. I think that different cultures are as valuable as others and can help each other in many ways - I do not think that mixing cultures is a bad idea.