I’m not a scientist, but I can recognize a good essay. Well done. I like your phrase, “structured understanding.” And thanks for introducing me to J. Archibald Wheeler and his island of knowledge. It occurs to me to ask whether every good scientist is also interested in epistemology. And whether every great scientist is also at least a dabbler in the arts. Why? Because they understand that the basis of both science and the arts is “I wonder whether X is like Y.”
I've read some papers before arguing that an outsized portion of highly successful scientists have wide-ranging interests, with the idea being that having concepts/ideas from other spaces helps them be more creative in finding solutions in their field
I keep mentioning this book to people: Jacob Bronowski, *The Origins of Knowledge and Imagination* (1979). It's a book version of his Silliman Memorial Lectures at Yale. Some people will remember Bronowski as the creator and host of the television series *The Ascent of Man*. He himself was both scientist and first-rate scholar of the poet William Blake.
I don’t think wonder and scepticism are opposites at all. I think scepticism is what protects wonder from collapsing into vibes. Without mechanisms, wonder turns into aesthetics. Without wonder, scepticism turns into cynicism. The balance you describe is exactly what keeps curiosity alive instead of being performative.
It is, in this now increasingly digitally-demon-haunted world, reassuring to add a voice like yours to those I trust, Tommy. To me, as I've already mentioned, you are a welcome addition to what I term, the new Saganists. Investigating rickety and often rotten or imaginary piers and docks all along the shores of our island.
Wisdom requires honesty about the difference between what we know and what we don’t really know. Except in dealing with small children, authority commands more respect when it admits uncertainty.
And the punk in me is annoyed and wants to look for holes to pick, because it all very much aligns with everything I've been thinking about the value of curiosity and scientific wonder and the danger or people who subvert it for clicks and views (especially the ones who confidently claim there is no island of knowledge and they're the only lighthouse of truth). But I can't see any holes in what you wrote here, it's all very well-reasoned, dammit. I hope I can return with a blistering 10,000 word takedown comment at some point, but right now, nuthin'.
Also, you mentioned stories. I think there's an enduring risk of relying on our deeply stored brains - a "story" being a set of patterns we've come to rely so heavily upon that sometimes scientific discoveries can challenge in such a deeply unsettling way. Being skeptical about the framing stories we tell, especially in sci-comm for self-promotional purposes, is a really interesting topic, with huge ramifications for how science is communicated in a popular media sometimes ill-equipped to report on it.
(For example, how upsetting is quantum physics when it suggests probabilistic models of reality? Whaddayamean that chair is only "mostly" over there? Whaddayamean that's how lasers actually work, via quantum mechanics which make no 'sense'? AAAARGH etc.)
So, one way that an explanation can be unrealistically simplified is that it's a "good story". And since we LOVE a good story - well, that can be a right old muddle.
Thanks, Mike! Glad it resonated. I was partially inspired by your recent not-a-manifesto post (but I know what manifesto means so I called this one, much to the chagrin of my wife, who said that as an immigrant in America I'm not allowed to title any of my documents "Manifesto.docx").
Feel free to give me a snotty "Fuck off" sometime if you need to. We all need to feed that inner punk
I've gained more understanding and wonder lately by being introduced to natural selection by Dawkins and Dennett. And now for cultural-genetic coevolution and game theory for morality via Ken Binmore. I feel like I am part of a larger and long-running algorithmic process.
This really clicked for me. I love the way you frame wonder and skepticism as partners rather than opposites, with “punk” as the reminder not to outsource your thinking while still respecting expertise. The islands and shoreline metaphor is especially good – the more you learn, the more clearly you see what you do not know, and that is where the energy comes from. I also appreciate the emphasis on explanations that actually cash out in mechanisms and evidence, not just labels or vibes. Curious where you think the balance lands in practice: how do you personally decide when to keep digging versus when to trust a domain and move on?
I don't have any general rule of thumb for when to keep digging -- it's mostly just a matter of motivation. If I'm not still curious and motivated, I won't. What I do is try to critically examine things that come to me to provoke the curiosity that will motivate me to keep digging. It's wild how often I'll think I "get it" with something, then take a moment to probe that thought and realize there's still some massive gap, and suddenly I'm very curious to fill that gap. I think it's easier to consciously cultivate being critical of our own explanations than trying to consciously motivate curiosity in the abstract, if that makes sense.
Living on planet Earth is a wonder and wonder-ful. I like watching documentaries on the nature of our universe and it's extraordinary how many systems work in they way they work which makes life here possible. Seems like the more we try to understand how things really work, the harder it is to understand.
That Wheeler quote is wonderful. It articulates the feeling perfectly. Thank you for sharing it. I found myself thinking about how it connects to that saying about specialists knowing more and more about less and less until they know everything about nothing (a favourite quote at a startup I worked at once upon a time).
I do think there’s something both humbling and thrilling about comprehending the vastness of one’s ignorance as understanding deepens. The shoreline keeps expanding.
Your framing of the wonderer–skeptic–punk trinity kept me mulling it over long after I’d finished reading. I hadn’t thought about DIY epistemology quite that way before, but it makes me even more keen to hone my floating-rock identification systems: to learn to recognise the gaps just as much as the knowledge. The punk ethos as genuine understanding rather than contrarian rejection... that’s a satisfyingly key point.
Thank you again for a wonderfully thought-provoking read.
I’m not a scientist, but I can recognize a good essay. Well done. I like your phrase, “structured understanding.” And thanks for introducing me to J. Archibald Wheeler and his island of knowledge. It occurs to me to ask whether every good scientist is also interested in epistemology. And whether every great scientist is also at least a dabbler in the arts. Why? Because they understand that the basis of both science and the arts is “I wonder whether X is like Y.”
Thank you!
I've read some papers before arguing that an outsized portion of highly successful scientists have wide-ranging interests, with the idea being that having concepts/ideas from other spaces helps them be more creative in finding solutions in their field
I keep mentioning this book to people: Jacob Bronowski, *The Origins of Knowledge and Imagination* (1979). It's a book version of his Silliman Memorial Lectures at Yale. Some people will remember Bronowski as the creator and host of the television series *The Ascent of Man*. He himself was both scientist and first-rate scholar of the poet William Blake.
I don’t think wonder and scepticism are opposites at all. I think scepticism is what protects wonder from collapsing into vibes. Without mechanisms, wonder turns into aesthetics. Without wonder, scepticism turns into cynicism. The balance you describe is exactly what keeps curiosity alive instead of being performative.
It is, in this now increasingly digitally-demon-haunted world, reassuring to add a voice like yours to those I trust, Tommy. To me, as I've already mentioned, you are a welcome addition to what I term, the new Saganists. Investigating rickety and often rotten or imaginary piers and docks all along the shores of our island.
Wow, thanks so much, I'm very honored to be considered one of "the new Saganists"!
It is very nice to encounter someone who appears to have bubbled up with familiar ruminations out of a similar milieu!
But you talk prettier than I do. :-)
Substack is great.
Wisdom requires honesty about the difference between what we know and what we don’t really know. Except in dealing with small children, authority commands more respect when it admits uncertainty.
This is so excellent.
And the punk in me is annoyed and wants to look for holes to pick, because it all very much aligns with everything I've been thinking about the value of curiosity and scientific wonder and the danger or people who subvert it for clicks and views (especially the ones who confidently claim there is no island of knowledge and they're the only lighthouse of truth). But I can't see any holes in what you wrote here, it's all very well-reasoned, dammit. I hope I can return with a blistering 10,000 word takedown comment at some point, but right now, nuthin'.
Also, you mentioned stories. I think there's an enduring risk of relying on our deeply stored brains - a "story" being a set of patterns we've come to rely so heavily upon that sometimes scientific discoveries can challenge in such a deeply unsettling way. Being skeptical about the framing stories we tell, especially in sci-comm for self-promotional purposes, is a really interesting topic, with huge ramifications for how science is communicated in a popular media sometimes ill-equipped to report on it.
(For example, how upsetting is quantum physics when it suggests probabilistic models of reality? Whaddayamean that chair is only "mostly" over there? Whaddayamean that's how lasers actually work, via quantum mechanics which make no 'sense'? AAAARGH etc.)
So, one way that an explanation can be unrealistically simplified is that it's a "good story". And since we LOVE a good story - well, that can be a right old muddle.
Thanks, Mike! Glad it resonated. I was partially inspired by your recent not-a-manifesto post (but I know what manifesto means so I called this one, much to the chagrin of my wife, who said that as an immigrant in America I'm not allowed to title any of my documents "Manifesto.docx").
Feel free to give me a snotty "Fuck off" sometime if you need to. We all need to feed that inner punk
Easy-to-miss features of our experience is what Perplexities of Consciousness is about!
I've gained more understanding and wonder lately by being introduced to natural selection by Dawkins and Dennett. And now for cultural-genetic coevolution and game theory for morality via Ken Binmore. I feel like I am part of a larger and long-running algorithmic process.
This really clicked for me. I love the way you frame wonder and skepticism as partners rather than opposites, with “punk” as the reminder not to outsource your thinking while still respecting expertise. The islands and shoreline metaphor is especially good – the more you learn, the more clearly you see what you do not know, and that is where the energy comes from. I also appreciate the emphasis on explanations that actually cash out in mechanisms and evidence, not just labels or vibes. Curious where you think the balance lands in practice: how do you personally decide when to keep digging versus when to trust a domain and move on?
I don't have any general rule of thumb for when to keep digging -- it's mostly just a matter of motivation. If I'm not still curious and motivated, I won't. What I do is try to critically examine things that come to me to provoke the curiosity that will motivate me to keep digging. It's wild how often I'll think I "get it" with something, then take a moment to probe that thought and realize there's still some massive gap, and suddenly I'm very curious to fill that gap. I think it's easier to consciously cultivate being critical of our own explanations than trying to consciously motivate curiosity in the abstract, if that makes sense.
What a beautiful and concise description of science and observation!
Living on planet Earth is a wonder and wonder-ful. I like watching documentaries on the nature of our universe and it's extraordinary how many systems work in they way they work which makes life here possible. Seems like the more we try to understand how things really work, the harder it is to understand.
There's so much to discover!
What a delightfully sharp read.
That Wheeler quote is wonderful. It articulates the feeling perfectly. Thank you for sharing it. I found myself thinking about how it connects to that saying about specialists knowing more and more about less and less until they know everything about nothing (a favourite quote at a startup I worked at once upon a time).
I do think there’s something both humbling and thrilling about comprehending the vastness of one’s ignorance as understanding deepens. The shoreline keeps expanding.
Your framing of the wonderer–skeptic–punk trinity kept me mulling it over long after I’d finished reading. I hadn’t thought about DIY epistemology quite that way before, but it makes me even more keen to hone my floating-rock identification systems: to learn to recognise the gaps just as much as the knowledge. The punk ethos as genuine understanding rather than contrarian rejection... that’s a satisfyingly key point.
Thank you again for a wonderfully thought-provoking read.
awesome piece
in the words of Maynard James K:
"I'll
keep
digging
till I
feel
something"
uh also "how can this mean anything to me if I really don't feel a thing at all"
stuff like that
🤘🏼
I experienced this with Gemini today, and I found a solution.