Skip to main content

Love is like Phlogiston - science as better communication.

                                         
                                                    Sophia- Pneumatic

       Every year, between the start of July and the end of August, Japan's Mt Fuji is alive with city-dwellers determined to conquer the famous peak. At this time, the shops on the slopes of the volcano do a roaring trade in small cans of oxygen as even the most unenlightened of Tokyo troglodytes recognises the need for this vital gas to keep our body working.  
         If, however, you were attempting to climb Mt Olympus in ancient Greece and felt the same need for a shot of 02, the locals would probably politely suggest that you suck in some of the plentiful supply of pneuma that is all around you, as that's clearly all that a body needs.

                         Communication is always INFO ---------> IDEA

          Wherever we may be from, all of our ancestors long ago looked up at the Sun, the Moon and the Stars and tried to offer each other explanations.  Understandably, considering the demanding circumstances of their lives, these explanations were largely about a god or gods who were quick to anger and whose opaque schemes for human-kind were largely inexplicable. Given the information they had to work with, I can only admire their ingenuity in coming up with anything at all.
           And yet, at the same time, these people were naturally developing certain techniques and methods that would serve them brilliantly for survival. They learned how and where to catch food and which plants to eat or use as medicine, as well as developing cultural ideas and habits that would contribute to the prosperity of the group. They were successful largely because they communicated knowledge to each other and to the next generation. Human beings over time developed the four most basic tools of human communication:-

                             Describing + Explaining + Asking + Checking


      Of course, it is much easier to use these tools when you are not worrying about food or the proximity of sabre-tooth tigers to your infants. So communication took great leaps and bounds when societies were forged that allowed people the time to just sit around and think and to be able to discuss their ideas at length. In  places like ancient Greece, where farming had led to the development of civilisation, people began to propose ideas about how things worked that went beyond formerly simplistic explanations like: "It's God!".
    Theories about the human body and society and the mind were all described and explained as fully as was possible, as reason and inquiry were allowed to flourish and philosophy was allowed to grow.
     Philosophy or the love of wisdom, may be best described as: trying to understand how things work. Defined like this, it allows us to see that philosophy is vital to human survival and prosperity. The desire to understand how things work has given us all the benefits of modern life.  Also, we can understand that throughout history all cultures have basically sought the same targets of philosophy: survival and prosperity; so that we should not consider philosophy to be only the sport of ancient g(r)eeks.
             For philosophy you need to communicate, and we are all born with the ability to communicate. Philosophy is our birth-right. It is our cultures that strip this from us. Gradually, over human history, our cultures have become more tolerant of communication, more welcoming to philosophy, but it is still early days considering the possibilities before us.

          
           INFO--------> IDEA  therefore  more INFO--------> more IDEA

          
                                              What's the bleeding time?
 
                                    
        England, at the end of the 17th Century, thanks to some lucky accidents of history and certainly not to any superiority of English blood,  was enjoying the fruits of its empire. One of the most succulent of these growths upon the tree of knowledge would be the development of what is often referred to as the scientific revolution.
        Using a commercially-available microscope, the English Physician William Harvey observed the hearts of insects acting as pneumatic pumps. From these observations of our tiny cousins, Harvey developed his theory of blood circulation. It is sobering to consider that a reasonable theory of how our blood works within us is only 300 years old.
        Any theory is most simply an explanation. If people are communicating effectively then any explanation will be naturally met by questions asking for more information or checking an idea.     Harvey was able to provide the information gained from his observations with the microscope as well as describing and explaining how blood flows by way of experiment. The use of an experiment allows other people to check the information and the idea. The modern practice of science requires describing and explaining and asking and checking as standard. Thus it can be seen that "the most precious thing we have " as Einstein said of science, describes as well our best efforts to communicate.

            This dawn of reason, this era of Halley, Harvey and Hooke, would come to be seen as the time of transition from alchemy to chemistry; when natural philosophy became science.  But, whatever you want to call it, it seems fair to say that, most basically, the explanations got better.
         In 1667, a learned person attempting to get the better of any mountain in Japan or Greece or anywhere, may well have wondered about the new-fangled theory of Phlogiston as they attempted to light a fire to keep warm on the slopes. This theory attempted to explain what happened during combustion by describing an element called phlogiston that was responsible for how well things burned. Until the end of the next century, phlogiston would provide the best explanation that people could come up with.
        The phlogiston theory would sputter on for a hundred years until the French scientist  Antoine Lavoisier  defined both oxygen and hydrogen and his experiments involving H2O would help explain how it was that oxygen  was the key to understanding combustion.
        Phologiston's spark was no more, ironically snuffed out by oxygen.  Lavoisier himself would meet his own fate at the mercy of a Revolutionary court, that would see fit to put him to death for the heinous crime of adultering the nation's tobacco supply. With water.
       
      If we wish to avoid a future where knowledge and information is feared and those who seek to understand and explain are considered too dangerous to live, we must encourage science.
      Science, however, can only flourish through better communication. Whether it be improved instruments to provide better information  or encouraging a culture where people can ask questions or provide alternative explanations without fear of an inquisition,  science, or indeed, the love of wisdom is most simply an ongoing conversation with the universe.
         As the universe is a little shy at times and reluctant to explain itself, doesn't it make sense for human beings to be encouraging as many people as possible to be involved with this conversation? As one of the finest examples of the only thing we ever do, science is way too important to be left to just those who get paid for it. Or those who seek only profit from it.
               




                                      According to Sweet, Love is like Oxygen. 



                                    



                          


          
                
        
                    
    

Comments

  1. havent heard this in ages! Singer looks like Keith Chegwin.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Indeed. I like to imagine that in a parallel universe a medieval Sweet stormed the hit-parade with "Love is like Phlogiston." I wonder what THEY look like?

      Delete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Cleopatra, a cowboy, then screaming!. - How we understand things.

“We, ignorant of ourselves, Beg often our own harms, which the wise powers Deny us for our good; so find we profit By losing of our prayers.”                 “Finish, good lady; the bright day is done, And we are for the Dark. ” ― William Shakespeare, Antony and Cleopatra   Cleopatra, a cowboy, then....screaming!       Presented with this information, how does the brain deal with it? Necessarily, the brain must deal with it as it does with all information:                                 Information -------------> Idea        Consequently, you might sort it out like this:                        Cleopatra   --------------> Queen Of Egypt                        A cowboy   --------------> Tom Mix                       Screaming! --------------> Expressing a strong emotional state         And then, in an example of the fundamentally creative aspect of basic communication, our brains start to fill in the blanks, to describe and e

"And do the other things" - Kennedy, Context and the Matrix.

Around the time of the anniversary of Apollo 11, or of the famous assassination in Dallas, the clip of President John F. Kennedy talking about going to the Moon has often been wheeled out: Ever since I saw this for the first time, maybe 35 years ago, I was always slightly baffled by the phrase: "We choose to go to the Moon and do the other things , not because they are easy, but because they are hard." What does "and do the other things" mean, I wondered? Why did Kennedy just presume his audience would know what these other things were? Or was it some sophisticated rhetorical device that I was unaware of? Should I start using it to give whatever I was saying some much-needed gravitas? However, just last week I happened upon a fuller version of the speech: Clearly then, the other things are referring to the climbing of Everest and the flying of the Atlantic, conquering the challenges necessary for progress.  With context, it is obvious what "and do the other th

A whale is a tree; obviously.

When I was young enough to be sat in school within glancing distance of a small library space that was dominated by a Miffy Wendy house# and contained, in my opinion, far too many Miffy books, yet just old enough to be offended that people would think that I would want to read about Miffy; the cover of one book spoke louder than all of those that surrounded it and thoroughly intrigued me.     The title of this book was: Jonah and the Whale.     Of course, this title referred to the famous Bible story, but at that age (maybe I was five or six) I don't think I knew of it. What I did know was what a whale was: a massive fish*, and that Jonah was someone's name, probably because of Ken Reid's comic character: Jonah . Jonah- not the Biblical one     So, the book's cover was something that drew my interest because, I wondered, why did the cover show an illustration of a man sitting under a tree? It was similar to this: Jonah...and... something.        Why did