Erika Corinne Sison 2018-06328

Critical Essay

In his paper Carl Sagan briefly mentions that there are two possible reactions
to the idea that everything might be known. There is the scientist, who believes
with absolute confidence that the answer is yes, but there is also the fearful
questioner who fervently hopes otherwise. While Sagan did not expound on why
one might fear a known universe, it might be inferred from the other parts of the
passage. According to him, science is a way of thinking. It is a series of questions
and mental hula hoops one must jump through to get to a satisfactory conclusion,
which becomes accepted scientific knowledge. Much like hula hooping, science
provides a sense of ecstasy at its accomplishment. For hundreds of years, the
continued expansion of scientific knowledge has occupied mankind’s time, effort
and devotion. To understand the universe in its entirety would mean an end to this
journey. It is not a fear of knowledge in itself, but rather what comes after. At such
a point, scientists no longer question or innovate but rather attempt to retain what
is already held as fact. The bright flame of scientific discovery fizzles out into
passive acceptance. This is all there is and ever will be.
I personally can understand why this fear might be a valid one, but not one
that seems very likely. It is my own personal belief that the universe was created,
and that some aspects of it are unknowable to our fallible, mortal minds. Carl
Sagan argues that the universe we live in is one that abides by a set of restrictions
that governs the natural order. He posits if like a salt atom for example, the entire
universe follows a set of consistent rules, then it is knowable. Perhaps not in the
near future, but eventually it will be. Information need not be stored in the finite
human mind, but in computers and books of which we can continue to make more
of should the need arise. If one studies the trend of scientific discovery, it seems
that his idea is accurate. Every generation that passes , society gets a clearer and
clearer picture of how the world behaves. The rate of these advancements in
science and technology have already accelerated immensely. The ranks of scientists
and other invested parties are growing everyday. Within his given set of
parameters, I would be likely to agree. Yet, I believe that there is a limit to how the
growing universe follows these restrictions and laws, at least in the capacity that we
or the technology that we create are able to understand. Much like a line may grow
infinitesimally close to its asymptote but never ​quite​ touch it, I believe that our
understanding may grow immensely, but the universe will never be completely
known. Human beings are bound by the same laws that hold the universe together.
We are not mere passive observers, assessing our hypothesis on an experiment.
We are part of the experiment. We perceive laws and restrictions that abide by ​our
logic, ​our p
​ erceptions. Given the sheer scale of our universe, even the metric by
which we assess what constitutes as knowledge might just be a scratch on the
surface. I’m not very afraid to know all that can be known, because I think it is
simply impossible.