There was recent family research program that got started over some portfolio allocations.
After the research my views on what I felt I knew were changed about 180 degrees.
I first ascribed this to a phenomenon of believing what you read in the popular press. The press was in this case and in many others, a bit alarmist. And in this case I took those words for gospel and it was affixed in my mind for a number of years.
That was a bit of a mistake and I wish now that I had maintained my usual skepticism of what I had read. I'm usually good at that, but on occasion when an article aligns with my core beliefs and possibly what I want to believe, it's awfully easy to accept it.
We all have that problem.
Then I ran I ran across an article from a researcher. He mentioned he ran into a person whom he knew in grad school. They were both working towards their PhD. The friend dropped out and went to law school. He stuck it out.
The friend told him that she quit because the research made her feel stupid.
The researcher considered this. He recognized that looking into things that are unknown should make us feel stupid. Well, maybe ignorant is a better word.
I've run into this too. I was doing some judging at science fairs. I was working at a national lab and doing technical stuff, so this shouldn't have been too much trouble.
There were a couple of problems with that. The kids were looking into stuff that was unknown to me. They tended to stare me in the eyes too; quite disconcerting! And then a number of exhibitors had access to labs and parents who probably helped a lot. A lot of it was beyond me.
An interesting part of this was as I tried to fill in the gaps of my own knowledge by asking questions of the kids, they had problems with my lack of understanding. General principals of a lot of things be they biological or physical are usually fairly simple. But the connections from what they are playing with and general principals can be obscure. I needed the connections, but the kids had trouble providing them as they were too close to it and never looked at their project from an outsider's point of view.
Now, back to golf... As I struggle through the mass of knowledge out there one has to realize that it's not all right. Even if we agree that there are a number of ways to hit golf balls, there are physical properties that we have to respect. Then it's also an issue and body of knowledge as to how and what we want our physical bodies to do.
As I stumble along I feel like that researcher who feels stupid. I feel lost on occasion -- ok, quite often. I envy the golfer who just gets up and hits it and doesn't have to reflect on it all.
But like the researcher, this feeling is valid and acceptable. I should accept the lost feelings and embrace them rather than feeling discouraged. It reveals new areas of inquiry and new possibilities and directions of investigation. All of which should be considered as a good thing.
I don't know if my family member will resolve the beliefs we used to share in common. I hope the question well provide some incite into firmly held beliefs and how they might be correct or correct for everyone.
I used to engage folks on Facebook about the issues of the day. When something came up which I didn't agree, I looked into it. For example I was told that the expected life span in Tennessee was 30 years less than the rest of the country (interestingly this was also from a family member). 30 years seemed a lot. I looked it up. She was right, they do have a lesser life span but it's 5 years not 30. There are also details that I found interesting as the Tennesseans had a tendency to die young. It wasn't health care or lack of social support, they just tended to get a little crazy early in life. Why did she accept the 30 year number uncritically? It should have seemed awfully big to anyone. Another post topic!
I got interested in science and the "news" in a big way when the issue of global warming came up. Al Gore was telling us that the world was doomed and the arctic would ice free by 2018, etc., etc. That led to a lot of reading and thinking and learning about peer reviewed papers and how science is done, etc. I don't have a lot of respect for much of what I run across now and no belief in what I read in the papers. Any headline that starts with "Scientist say..." is almost guaranteed to some newspaper editor's world view and not what was in the actual paper. The press releases are not much better and the papers tend to print without asking any questions. Also peer reviewed papers are no guarantee of truth either. A topic for another day...
So I feel in a lot of ways and in almost all fields that I am surrounded by a large sea (are there small seas? Maybe I don't need the "large" in there.), of ignorant, slanted, and poorly understood stuff in all fields. Think salt and fat are bad for you? Better check. Think the golf swing needs a huge lower body movement to swing fast? Might not be that clear...
I've reached the point where I don't trust anything. Thankfully it's quite easy to access the sum of all human knowledge these days allows you to look around and see what is probably true and that which is wrong and that which is unknown.
My advice is to embrace all of this and be very wary about "knowing" something. I'm going to work on my humility!
No comments:
Post a Comment