I think that few people realize that much of the "science" they are exposed to is in reality "science fiction".
It is fine fantasy to imagine paleontology finds, for example, living lives similar to our own, or animals alive today. For example, watching a National Geographic special on dinosaurs the finds were romanticized, portraying moving stories of the animals such as them struggling to reach the surface as they were buried alive, or two finds, close together, holding hands.
This is what people WANT to hear. They WANT to imagine a scene of intimacy, of complex behavior that is obviously unknowable. And science narrators are more than happy to oblige, to delve into this story telling that would support their ideas and perhaps bring more money into their profession.
Science is the process of trying to figure out how the world/universe works. In regards to history, especially ancient history, it becomes quite difficult to know everything we WANT to know. How do we fill the gaps? With fiction. Stories. Romanticized ideas.
There is nothing WRONG with this, per se, but when people don't understand the difference between science and science fiction misunderstandings occur.
What I find interesting is when we have good historicity, ancient documentation supporting something current, that is well supported by critical analysis but it borders on the "supernatural" it is immediately discarded. Yet something that is literally IMPOSSIBLE to know that happened perhaps 80 million years ago and little or no supporting evidence, even circumstantial evidence exists, it is easier for people to believe the "stories" crafted to support theoretical ideas that are not provable.
Ah well.
No comments:
Post a Comment