Humans have an innate desire to know. It is this desire that has spawned over generations to create the world that we reside in today. When we say a man has a desire to know, we assume that the man is thinking rationally, according to the present socially acceptable norms of rationality, and is progressing towards a state of higher knowledge. There is a positive connotation attached to the desire of knowing and any act motivated by this desire is deemed 'right'. However, society has changed over the years and centuries, what was rational yesterday is considered foolishness today and vice-a-versa. An apt example would be the distinction between astronomy and astrology. Although both are based on the study of stars and its movements, we consider astronomy to be the science which is enlightening and astrology to be one with blind faith. Perhaps that may be true, for astrology is from the era when stars were still considered deities and gods were in plenty. The pagan culture of the day infused in men the fear for natural forces and assumption of a heavy influence on their present and future. Rocks, stones, and boulders everything was worshiped and treated with awe and reverence. From this culture originated the study of stars, which had mesmerized man for long.
The scientific temper that we associate with astronomy, has a basic tenet that man should strive to know. Knowledge has a positive value expectancy attached to it. Yet, this knowledge has to be based on scientifically verifiable facts. Isn't that a more parochial outlook than you would expect from an enlightening science? If something is based on science its correct else it is false. Is that not a vicious loop where knowledge has to have science which is derived from knowledge of science. Where is the creativity here? Can no new hypotheses be made without being scorned upon, or assumptions made without proving them? Isn't science itself based on assumption. Let me elaborate this point further.
We believe that all natural organisms exist to breed and further their race. Reproducing is a natural part of life and perhaps the only goal of life. Here the positive value expectancy is based on life. Anything that furthers life is positive and so is reproduction, which extends life or creates a new life form. Everything that decreases or ends life is negative- death, manslaughter, suicide. Diseases are negative as they carry the potential of ending life. Whatever we have learnt after that is based on this basic tenet that life is positive- yet can any one suggest a way of verifying this information? What is life itself was negative in a different ecosystem or in a way we still do not know and are unaware of ?
Some of you may consider this to be absurd, but so was it absurd when someone thought or making a screen you could read this blog on a few centuries from now.
The innate desire to know can be extended to one's future. Should a man not be interested in knowing what does the future hold in it for him? Why not, he should. Then why is astrology, that predicts your future with uncertain precision, looked down upon? Why do humans have to take decisions based on the presently accepted social norms of rationality. Had Rutherford given his model of an atom today, people would have scorned on him yet he is considered as someone who boldly lay a hypothesis, although false, that has led us to the discovery of quarks today. Astrology may not be correct, but can we not look into ways of predicting the future of a person based on some permutations and combinations and make that a science. It does not have to depend on stars, normal human actions and the environmental knowledge, mixed with market predictions and health statistics could end up making a good prediction for any person. What we need is not to scorn over astrology, but the way it is practiced today. Man will always hunger to know his future and sooner or later we will have to explore how to do that.
