The discovery of ignorance

The discovery of ignorance

The Hubble Deep Field photograph • R. Williams (STScI), the Hubble Deep Field Team and NASA/ESA

Originally published 18 May 1998

What is the great­est sci­en­tif­ic dis­cov­ery of the 20th-century?

Nuclear ener­gy? The struc­ture of DNA? The the­o­ry of dig­i­tal com­pu­ta­tion? The Big Bang?

It has been an excep­tion­al cen­tu­ry of dis­cov­ery. Our vision of the uni­verse has been extend­ed by many orders of mag­ni­tude out­ward to the quasars and inward to the quarks. Our under­stand­ing of our place in the stream of life and con­scious­ness has been consolidated.

How do we choose one dis­cov­ery over any other?

The physi­cian Lewis Thomas made a choice. He blunt­ly asserts: “The great­est of all the accom­plish­ments of 20th-cen­tu­ry sci­ence has been the dis­cov­ery of human ignorance.”

The sci­ence writer Tim­o­thy Fer­ris agrees: “Our igno­rance, of course, has always been with us, and always will be. What is new is our aware­ness of it, our awak­en­ing to its fath­om­less dimen­sions, and it is this, more than any­thing else, that marks the com­ing of age of our species.”

It is an odd, unset­tling thought that the cul­mi­na­tion of our great­est cen­tu­ry of dis­cov­ery should be the con­fir­ma­tion of our igno­rance. How did such a thing come about?

The dis­cov­ery of our igno­rance fol­lowed inevitably from dis­cov­er­ies of the scope and grandeur of the universe.

I begin my course in astron­o­my at Stone­hill Col­lege hold­ing in my hands a 16-inch clear acrylic celes­tial globe span­gled with stars. A small­er ter­res­tri­al globe is at the cen­ter, and a tiny yel­low ball rep­re­sent­ing the sun cir­cles between Earth and sky. This tidy cos­mos of con­cen­tric spheres was invent­ed thou­sands of years ago to account for the appar­ent motions of sun, moon, and stars, and for that task it still works pret­ty well.

When we thought we lived in such a uni­verse, we could believe that a com­plete inven­to­ry of its con­tents was pos­si­ble. The uni­verse was pro­por­tioned to the human scale, cre­at­ed specif­i­cal­ly for our domi­cile. Pre­sum­ably, since it was made for us, the uni­verse con­tained noth­ing beyond the ken of the human mind.

Then, in the win­ter of 1610, Galileo turned his new­ly-craft­ed tele­scope to the Milky Way and saw stars in uncount­able num­bers, stars that served no appar­ent pur­pose in the human scheme of things since they could not be seen by human eyes. It was an omi­nous hint of the cas­cad­ing dis­cov­er­ies to come.

I end my astron­o­my course with the Hub­ble Space Tele­scope’s Deep Field Pho­to­graph, a 10-day expo­sure of a part of the dark night sky so tiny it could be cov­ered by the inter­sec­tion of crossed pins held at arms length. In this pho­to are con­tained the images of sev­er­al thou­sand galax­ies, each galaxy con­sist­ing of hun­dreds of bil­lions of stars and plan­et systems.

A sur­vey of the bowl of the Big Dip­per at the same scale would show 40 mil­lion galaxies.

Galax­ies as numer­ous as snowflakes in a storm! Each with uncount­able plan­ets, strange geo­gra­phies, per­haps biolo­gies, intel­li­gences. To live in such a uni­verse is to admit that the human mind singly or col­lec­tive­ly will nev­er be in pos­ses­sion of final knowledge.

Fer­ris quotes the philoso­pher Karl Pop­per: “The more we learn about the world, and the deep­er our learn­ing, the more con­scious, spe­cif­ic, and artic­u­late will be our knowl­edge of what we do not know, our knowl­edge of our igno­rance. For this, indeed, is the main source of our igno­rance — the fact that our knowl­edge can be only finite, while our igno­rance must nec­es­sar­i­ly be infinite.”

How do we react to this new and hum­bling knowl­edge? That depends, I sup­pose, on our tem­pera­ments. Some of us are fright­ened by the vast spaces of our igno­rance, and seek refuge in the human-cen­tered uni­verse of the acrylic star globe. Oth­ers are exhil­a­rat­ed by the oppor­tu­ni­ties for fur­ther dis­cov­ery, for the new vis­tas that will sure­ly open before us.

It is the lat­ter frame of mind that dri­ves sci­ence. The physi­cist Heinz Pagels wrote: “The capac­i­ty to tol­er­ate com­plex­i­ty and wel­come con­tra­dic­tion, not the need for sim­plic­i­ty and cer­tain­ty, is the attribute of an explor­er. Cen­turies ago, when some peo­ple sus­pend­ed their search for absolute truth and began instead to ask how things worked, mod­ern sci­ence was born. Curi­ous­ly, it was by aban­don­ing the search for absolute truth that sci­ence began to make progress, open­ing the mate­r­i­al uni­verse to human exploration.”

The dis­cov­ery of our igno­rance should not be con­ceived as a neg­a­tive thing. Igno­rance is a ves­sel wait­ing to be filled, per­mis­sion for growth, a foun­da­tion for the elec­tri­fy­ing encounter with mystery.

When the present cen­tu­ry comes to an end, we can claim with opti­mism that we know both more and less than we knew at the begin­ning: More because our inven­to­ry of knowl­edge has been great­ly expand­ed, less because the scope of our igno­rance has been even more great­ly realized.

Tim­o­thy Fer­ris writes: “No think­ing man or woman ought real­ly to want to know every­thing, for when knowl­edge and its analy­sis is com­plete, think­ing stops.”

Share this Musing:

Reader Comments

  1. It’s so easy to fall back into a small, nar­row, human-cen­tered world for many of us. Accept­ing the fact that we live in a huge, indif­fer­ent uni­verse, one “not made for us” is a tough prospect for mil­lions of peo­ple. Glad I’m not one of them! 😌 Excel­lent article!

Comments are closed.