Okay, I see more clearly now where you're coming from with this. There's something similar in literary theory, which used to make me furious with some scholars, because if you're going to take the work to pieces in that particular fashion, what on earth is the point?
However. What I am trying to say, above all, is that "challenging assumptions" is, at best, an epiphenomenon or secondary result of looking for the truth.
I still disagree. It's not secondary, it's part and parcel of the search. Unless one is willing to measure what one knows or thinks one knows against what one is learning, there is no search for truth happening at all. It may well be the case that there is no disruption, that one can simply add more detail to what one already knows (I've been reading Brian Greene's The Elegant Univers, on string theory, and it has felt like that). But it's also true that some conclusions (not necessarily talking about theology here, but other things) may have to be abandoned once one learns more. If one is unwilling to consider that, then how can one learn anything?
Of course, it's possible that I see things this way mostly because I was raised to think things through in a little ignorant white-trash town where people make absolutely insane assumptions about things. *shrug* "Challenging assumptions," to me, is a necessary habit of thought to make sure I don't fall into sheer stupidity.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2006-05-10 04:40 pm (UTC)However. What I am trying to say, above all, is that "challenging assumptions" is, at best, an epiphenomenon or secondary result of looking for the truth.
I still disagree. It's not secondary, it's part and parcel of the search. Unless one is willing to measure what one knows or thinks one knows against what one is learning, there is no search for truth happening at all. It may well be the case that there is no disruption, that one can simply add more detail to what one already knows (I've been reading Brian Greene's The Elegant Univers, on string theory, and it has felt like that). But it's also true that some conclusions (not necessarily talking about theology here, but other things) may have to be abandoned once one learns more. If one is unwilling to consider that, then how can one learn anything?
Of course, it's possible that I see things this way mostly because I was raised to think things through in a little ignorant white-trash town where people make absolutely insane assumptions about things. *shrug* "Challenging assumptions," to me, is a necessary habit of thought to make sure I don't fall into sheer stupidity.