The question expressed in this discussion is why, and to understand the answer to this we have to delve further into the conversation. In an effort to get to the root of Firestein’s point we should look into some key aspects. The points include ignorance, science, and dangers.
Ignorance
First, we see that ignorance is a prevalent issue with regards to the chapter. The theme is arguably seen as a way to identify how society perceives knowledge based on the question and answer paradigm. If that is an acceptable view of her take, then ignorance is just as important as it drives the need for more knowledge. She expresses some examples of times when the prevailing conscious felt like knowledge and information was in abundance. The most ironic of the examples include the anecdote regarding Francis Bacon, when she stated “the pre-Enlightenment father of the scientific method” and on to expand “complained in the 1600s of how the mass of accumulated knowledge had become unmanageable and unruly” (Firestein, 2012, p. 14). What would Francis think of the knowledge gained since the 1600s?
Science …show more content…
However, science is not discussed in the in the context of a profession. The author makes the connection of science as the search for new questions. In the book we read that “scientist don’t concentrate on what they know” more “on what they don’t” (Firestein, 2012, p. 14). Provided that observation is correct, we find that science is considered in a broader
Ignorance
First, we see that ignorance is a prevalent issue with regards to the chapter. The theme is arguably seen as a way to identify how society perceives knowledge based on the question and answer paradigm. If that is an acceptable view of her take, then ignorance is just as important as it drives the need for more knowledge. She expresses some examples of times when the prevailing conscious felt like knowledge and information was in abundance. The most ironic of the examples include the anecdote regarding Francis Bacon, when she stated “the pre-Enlightenment father of the scientific method” and on to expand “complained in the 1600s of how the mass of accumulated knowledge had become unmanageable and unruly” (Firestein, 2012, p. 14). What would Francis think of the knowledge gained since the 1600s?
Science …show more content…
However, science is not discussed in the in the context of a profession. The author makes the connection of science as the search for new questions. In the book we read that “scientist don’t concentrate on what they know” more “on what they don’t” (Firestein, 2012, p. 14). Provided that observation is correct, we find that science is considered in a broader