Despite our discussion in class on Tuesday, I am still
convinced that most scientific theory is indeed fact, or at least supported
enough to be considered fact. Just because a person believes that the world is
flat, does not mean that that person is correct, or even sane. Facts cannot be
simply refuted like an opinion, and they are by definition the truth.
Vonnegut’s point in Cats Cradle is
not to say that different realities contain different facts, but that
individual realities are unaffected by fact. This is exemplified in Dr.
Hoenikker’s interest in the string that binds the pages of 2000 A.D. rather than the book itself. He constantly plays with and
manipulates the technical end of the book, the string, while completely
ignoring the actual content, which can be seen as humanity. Jonah himself notes
that the book he intends to write is meant to “emphasize the human rather than
technical side of the bomb” (7). Here, Vonnegut introduces the separation of
the content of humanity from the truths of science. This is an important
distinction because it separates reality from fact without having to make such
rash statements like, “science is not fact.”
Many theories are yet to be proven, and science is, of
course, not perfect. We are always improving the limits of our knowledge.
However, Vonnegut does not aim to question the truth of science in Cat’s Cradle. Rather, he poses a
question: does it even matter?
I like your point about the separation between humanity and science. There is a difference between the realities we construct and the substance on which we base them. However, I do not think I agree with this separation completely. I think science is a direct result of a unique human quality engrained in our nature--our quest for truth. Which, Vonnegut argues, is fruitless.
ReplyDeleteI agree that there are parts of science that are inherently true, and that even if someone truly believes that the world is flat, they can be proven wrong. However, what if no one knows the real truth? Before we discovered that the world was round, everyone believed that it was flat. There were no other options, and so nobody attempted to prove this majority opinion wrong. At some point, therefore, the idea that the world is flat was "fact" or "truth" for everyone. Suddenly, with scientific advancement, this "fact" was proven false. What if, by some crazy discovery, we realized that the world was not actually round, or not actually revolving around the sun? Looking back, we all would have considered these ideas to be fact, even though they had always been false. Therefore, if there is a possibility that something could be proven false, how can we ever consider anything truly factual?
ReplyDelete