Is there knowledge that humanity shouldn't know?

hipbabboom

Huh? What did I say? Did I screw up again? :(
#1
I'm wondering if the idea that willful ignorance to prevent hypothetical fears from becoming reality is nothing more than a cowardly reaction to not being able to responsibly handle knowledge. I was hoping to hear some thoughts from others on this.

I was watching a program where I heard an except from a book written by Richard Feynman regarding his part in the creation of the atom bomb. He uses an analogy about how every man is given keys to the gates of heaven but how those same keys can also open the gates of hell. Here, I understood the keys are knowledge and heaven and hell represent positive and negative application of said knowledge.

It's really common to point to Nazi experimentation to point to, not only the negative application of knowledge, but to also to how knowledge acquired through negative means also weigh on ethnicity of use of the knowledge. This got me to wondering if there is knowledge that's forever trapped in nescience simply because the hypothetical means of acquiring it and the potential application of it are simply too negative? In such a situation, trying to extend the keys analogy, wouldn't there also be a positive means and a positive application for such knowledge?
 
#7
It is our responsibility as seekers of knowledge to use said knowledge responsibly

The universe owes us nothing as we are but faint random noise in the background of an infinite sea of black
 
#9
Yeah. If you think about certain things for too long you'll go insane.


And there are certain hard lines that science should never cross.
 
#10
Realistically no. But hypothetically time travel would be way too dangerous to mess with.
Agree. What would even be the justification for Time Travel that is just hubris. Anything we do know that is beneficial exists for a reason even when sometimes because of of our fear and selfishness.

Nuclear energy properly implemented could and is a game changer but we put it in warheads. I think FTL is another we are undeserving of as we would use it to claim as oppose to exploration.
 
#13
nobody gets to decide that, and it's unenforceable anyway as some rando alien could drop out of the sky and start yelling NINE ELEVEN WAS A COVER UP FOR OPRAHS LOVE CHILD
 
#15
Agree. What would even be the justification for Time Travel that is just hubris. Anything we do know that is beneficial exists for a reason even when sometimes because of of our fear and selfishness.

Nuclear energy properly implemented could and is a game changer but we put it in warheads. I think FTL is another we are undeserving of as we would use it to claim as oppose to exploration.
FTL's real main problem is that any large object propelled at FTL speeds is a horrifically powerful weapon that makes nukes look like child's play.
 
#18
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antimatter_weapon

The difficulty of preventing accidental detonation of an antimatter weapon may be contrasted with that of a nuclear weapon. Whereas nuclear weapons are 'fail-safe', antimatter weapons are inherently 'fail-dangerous': In an antimatter weapon, ANY failure of containment would immediately result in annihilation, which would damage or destroy the containment system and lead to the release of all of the antimatter material, causing the weapon to detonate entirely at full yield. By contrast, a modern nuclear weapon will explode with a significant yield if (and only if) the nuclear trigger is fired with absolute precision resulting in a neutron source wholly releasing promptly (< microseconds). In short, an antimatter weapon must be actively kept from detonating; whereas a nuclear weapon will not unless deliberately made to do so.
 
#19
The most merciful thing in the world, I think, is the inability of the human mind to correlate all its contents. We live on a placid island of ignorance in the midst of black seas of infinity, and it was not meant that we should voyage far. The sciences, each straining in its own direction, have hitherto harmed us little; but some day the piecing together of dissociated knowledge will open up such terrifying vistas of reality, and of our frightful position therein, that we shall either go mad from the revelation or flee from the deadly light into the peace and safety of a new dark age.
There are probably things we're not capable of dealing with/handling properly.
 

TheBowen

Sat alone in a boggy marsh
#23
Time travel and a weapon even more powerful then the atomic, especially something akin to a planet destroyer

At this moment, the knowledge of alien life might send people into a spiral. A mixture of people wanting to communicate with them, and those who are getting there guns ready
 
#26
The thirst for knowledge is what move us forward and is a result of the humanity trying to undesrtand itself, is part of who we are and the essense of who we are.

As I understand there is no knoledge that we shouldn't know, but a lot that we are not prepared to do, and we end up using it on the wrong.

That's how we learn tough, by fucking up things and trying again... the thing is, we're going to a point were fucking it up even once is not an option, and that scares me as much as it excites me.
 
#28
The answer is YES.

Full knowledge does few people good.

More important is the identity you construct to select which things to know and preferred ways to apply them. Works for both individuals and nations. Batta batta!

Why do you think disillusionment exists?
 

hipbabboom

Huh? What did I say? Did I screw up again? :(
#35
Time travel and a weapon even more powerful then the atomic, especially something akin to a planet destroyer

At this moment, the knowledge of alien life might send people into a spiral. A mixture of people wanting to communicate with them, and those who are getting there guns ready
I think you're saying that humanity as a whole may not be ready for the fallout from some knowledge spreading while it may be manageable by a few who may be able to deal with it?

We face this reality today as all governments and organization have varying levels of secrecy that may have been placed on certain information to, in some part, prevent mass hysteria.

I don't want to reduce my question to a myopic view where I ask is there knowledge that no one in humanity shouldn't know since the simple answer would be no because there will always be those who will fail or choose not to act. I wonder if the condition of who knows can safely be placed under the category of application of the knowledge.
 
#42
In theory, no. But it's very hard to acquire certain knowledge ethically in practice. When possible, we should do the best we can via simulation and statistics in those cases.
 
#44
We're certainly doing a poor job of having access to all human knowledge via the internet.

We don't seem to be designed to know the truth, only certain wise people really are able to grasp it. Our general tendancy to just believe whatever we want is true may have worked for surviving in the wilderness, but for civilization it's a dangerous way to live.

Whether through sci fi schenangans or the slow progress of evolution, we need to get better at using knowledge.
 
#46
No and what the actual fuck with anyone seriously thinking anything else. To exist is to strive to know, unless you want to live in chosen ignorance. Dealing with the knowledge many be difficult or dangerous but denying knowledge would ultimately lead to the end of our species however we ultimately evolve.
 
#47
what would you do with the knowledge that in the vast universe we are literally the only rock with life on it
just doubting that would be the case with how huge the universe is. And even if there is other life out there we probably can't reach them and they can't reach us if they were intelligent at all or are just animal like. So yeah it would honestly not make much of a difference although.... it's nice to know tho. But anyway if there is no other live, then i would find it pretty sad and depressive actually but ohwell even with that knowledge i would still stay sane probably.