One of the greatest challenges that the progress and advancement of technology brings into the world is that of paradigm shifts. Paradigms, the frameworks from which we view the world around us, cause us to see a very establish perspective. We build up so much confidence in our understanding of how the world works that we even filter facts to help prove our understanding. However, when our paradigms fall short of the full truth, we face the inevitable and rough correction or reconciliation with reality. An example of such comes from the planetary models.
The world came nothing short of kicking and screaming to finally adapt and change from Aristotle’s view of the solar system to the more correct findings of Copernicus and Galileo. They held off in defense of all that had been written and even ties to religion. But over time the truth broke through and the world experienced a slow but sure paradigm shift to a new model. This process however took lifetimes to fully pass through all the barriers of the social norm. The advancement of communication however, causes a paradigm shift on paradigm shifts.
With Copernicus, the new ideas were in fact closer to the scientific truth. However, when discussing technology as a shift of paradigms, I'm not sure we can say it is more valid than writing essays by hand or reading from a book. Easier maybe to use our computers and the internet, but the correct way? I'm not so sure.
ReplyDeleteI see what you're saying how global communication is facilitated, expressing information at such a quick rate as to affect the entire world and individualistic paradigms immediately rather than through osmosis of word. Fascinating thought. It also suggest that social tones are global, creating greater general movements, from competitive education perhaps, but to satisfaction of desires too. It seems global culture shies away from refinement, and accepts a near lowest common denominator.
ReplyDeleteThe difficult thing is that technology also allows false paradigm shifts. The recent "Climategate" emails were spread quickly around the world, and cries of hoaxes and conspiracies were everywhere and still persist. Yet numerous panels have found the authors guilty of no wrongdoing, and certainly the science behind global warming hasn't been invalidated. Yet the event pushed more people toward skepticism of the science, despite an avalanche of findings that confirm our basic understanding of the principles involved.
ReplyDeleteWill technology increasingly divide worldviews, or will we find more consensus in the future?