Change is ubiquitous. Change is upsetting. The changes which could bother us range from sudden weather flips (usually from warm to cold), to change of schools, to change of homes, to change of jobs, to migration, to (worst of all) change of parents or a breakup of the family. The death of a family member is, of course, a disaster. Yet, we accept and adapt – as we must.
How do we deal with changes in explanations, theories, or speculations in the fields of science? By and large, with indifference. Experts in each field of research can sort themselves out. There will be a little recalcitrance by some powerful stakeholders (or even lesser researchers) to accept any attempted deviation from the prevailing explanatory paradigm.
There will also be a few strange propositions lacking an informed basis; for example, that the human mind is only a manifestation of the brain. I have experienced evidence to the contrary.
When we come to consider the non-material or ethereal, we are again asked ‘Where is the evidence?’ Such evidence is expected to be validated through the scientific method; this expectation demonstrates ignorance about this method of acquiring reliable knowledge.
With history, apparently any period beyond 5,000 years is considered to be pre-history. A plethora of evidence suggesting extra-terrestrial visitation and guidance, earlier advanced human civilisations (obviously now gone), the possession of superior technology (displayed in the construction of megaliths, and some findings of metal artifacts), and even advanced spiritual insights, is challenged. A comparable situation is the futile competition between certain institutional religions.
How many of the challengers are only expressing their right not to know, or the claimed superiority of their unproven or un-provable beliefs? Non-belief, supported by arguments based on a chosen ‘logic’, surely cannot be a substitute for demonstrating the falsity of the innovative claim being challenged. Ever so often, belief contends only with belief!
Non-acceptance, because of a deficiency of ‘proof,’ cannot take us further in this dual search – who we are; and how we fit into the Cosmos. To know who we are, we need to know where we came from.