Number of words – 636<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The Scientific Revolution has not been a revolution of knowledge. It has been above all a revolution of ignorance. The great discovery that launched the Scientific Revolution was the discovery that humans do not know the answers to their most important questions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Premodern traditions of knowledge such as Islam, Christianity, Buddhism and Confucianism asserted that everything that is important to know about the world was already known. The great gods, or the one almighty God, or the wise people of the past possessed all-encompassing wisdom, which they revealed to us in scriptures and oral traditions. Ordinary mortals gained knowledge by delving into these ancient texts and traditions and understanding them properly. It was inconceivable that the Bible, the Qur\u2019an or the Vedas were missing out on a crucial secret of the universe \u2013 a secret that might yet be discovered by \udbc0\ude7besh-and-blood creatures.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Ancient traditions of knowledge admitted only two kinds of ignorance. First, an individual <\/em>might be ignorant of something important. To obtain the necessary knowledge, all he needed to do was ask somebody wiser. There was no need to discover something that nobody yet knew. For example, if a peasant in some thirteenth-century Yorkshire village wanted to know how the human race originated, he assumed that Christian tradition held the definitive answer. All he had to do was ask the local priest.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Second, an entire tradition <\/em>might be ignorant of unimportant <\/em>things. By definition, whatever the great gods or the wise people of the past did not bother to tell us was unimportant. For example, if our Yorkshire peasant wanted to know how spiders weave their webs, it was pointless to ask the priest, because there was no answer to this question in any of the Christian Scriptures. That did not mean, however, that Christianity was deficient. Rather, it meant that understanding how spiders weave their webs was unimportant. After all, God knew perfectly well how spiders do it. If this were a vital piece of information, necessary for human prosperity and salvation, God would have included a comprehensive explanation in the Bible.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Christianity did not forbid people to study spiders. But spider scholars \u2013 if there were any in medieval Europe \u2013 had to accept their peripheral role in society and the irrelevance of their findings to the eternal truths of Christianity. No matter what a scholar might discover about spiders or butter\udbc0\ude7bies or Galapagos finches, that knowledge was little more than trivia, with no bearing on the fundamental truths of society, politics and economics.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In fact, things were never quite that simple. In every age, even the most pious and conservative, there were people who argued that there were important <\/em>things of which their entire tradition <\/em>was ignorant. Yet such people were usually marginalised or persecuted \u2013 or else they founded a new tradition and began arguing that they <\/em>knew everything there is to know. For example, the prophet Muhammad began his religious career by condemning his fellow Arabs for living in ignorance of the divine truth. Yet Muhammad himself very quickly began to argue that he <\/em>knew the full truth, and his followers began calling him \u2018The Seal of the Prophets\u2019. Henceforth, there was no need of revelations beyond those given to Muhammad.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Modern-day science is a unique tradition of knowledge, inasmuch as it openly admits collective <\/em>ignorance regarding the most important questions<\/em>. Darwin never argued that he was \u2018The Seal of the Biologists\u2019, and that he had solved the riddle of life once and for all. After centuries of extensive scientific research, biologists admit that they still don\u2019t have any good explanation for how brains produce consciousness. Physicists admit that they don\u2019t know what caused the Big Bang, or how to reconcile quantum mechanics with the theory of general relativity.<\/p>\n\n\n\n