We Are More Naive Than Those Of

My Argument Is Limited To Saying That A Major New Medium Changes The Structure Of Discourse; It Does So By Encouraging Certain Uses Of The Intellect, By Favoring Certain Definitions Of Intelligence And Wisdom, And By Demanding A Certain Kind Of Content - In A Phrase, By Creating New Forms Of Truth-telling.

But In The End, Science Does Not Provide The Answers Most Of Us Require. Its Story Of Our Origins And Of Our End Is, To Say The Least, Unsatisfactory. To The Question, "how Did It All Begin?", Science Answers, "probably By An Accident." To The Question, "how Will It All End?", Science Answers, "probably By An Accident." And To Many People, The Accidental Life Is Not Worth Living. Moreover, The Science-god Has No Answer To The Question, "why Are We Here?" And, To The Question, "what Moral Instructions Do You Give Us?", The Science-god Maintains Silence.

For In The End, He Was Trying To Tell Us What Afflicted The People In 'brave New World' Was Not That They Were Laughing Instead Of Thinking, But That They Did Not Know What They Were Laughing About And Why They Had Stopped Thinking.

A Book Is An Attempt To Make Through Permanent And To Contribute To The Great Conversation Conducted By Authors Of The Past. […] The Telegraph Is Suited Only To The Flashing Of Messages, Each To Be Quickly Replaced By A More Up-to-date Message. Facts Push Other Facts Into And Then Out Of Consciousness At Speeds That Neither Permit Nor Require Evaluation. (70)

The Scientific Method," Thomas Henry Huxley Once Wrote, "is Nothing But The Normal Working Of The Human Mind." That Is To Say, When The Mind Is Working; That Is To Say Further, When It Is Engaged In Correcting Its Mistakes. Taking This Point Of View, We May Conclude That Science Is Not Physics, Biology, Or Chemistry — Is Not Even A ”subject " — But A Moral Imperative Drawn From A Larger Narrative Whose Purpose Is To Give Perspective, Balance, And Humility To Learning.