4.b 摆脱经验的局限

Make Time Your Friend 4.b: Breaking Free of the Limits of Experience

> By Li Xiaolai · 2008-05-18 · [Original (web archive)](https://web.archive.org/web/20110927235230/http://www.lixiaolai.com/archives/435.html) (Chinese)
> Our translation from the Chinese original.

Besides "trial and error," "observation" and "reading," "thinking"—to be precise, "thinking correctly"—is the main means of acquiring knowledge in the true sense. Before there was writing, humans could already think. But limited by the amount of knowledge already known, it was very hard for humans to think correctly.

For example, it's easy to imagine that in ancient times people's understanding of cause and effect was of course very limited. And all their real-life experience was making them feel that "everything has a cause." When people saw the branches and leaves on a tree moved by the wind, they could of course understand that the wind was the cause of the leaves fluttering. But they didn't know what people today learn from textbooks in primary school, that "the flow of air becomes wind." So they naturally thought: "Some force must have caused the wind, but what on earth is it?" In the absence of any "reasonable explanation," they would go on to think, "That can only be the power of the gods"—because "everything has a cause." They couldn't imagine that there really exist things in this world "without any purpose." In fact, to this day, among the whole human population there is a vast majority who still firmly believe "everything has a cause," and take this understanding as the basis for understanding everything.

Thomas Sowell once marveled at Darwin's greatness, saying, "Darwin was a landmark not only in biology, but in the history of the development of human thought" [[1](#footnote_0_435 "Knowledge and decision, by Thomas Sowell, p.98.")]. Darwin was great because he was almost the first person with the full ability to "think correctly" about problems across a time span of several million years, completely free of the limits of "individual perception"; and because of this, countless later people could "stand on the shoulders of giants" and build and perfect a systematic way of thinking that breaks through the limits of the human individual—the "scientific method" (Scientific Methods).

> On November 24, 1859, after twenty years of careful preparation, Darwin published *On the Origin of Species*. The first edition printed one thousand two hundred and fifty copies and sold out within a day. However, this did not mean that Darwin had "won" and religion had "lost"
>
> In the 43rd year after Darwin's death, 66 years after *On the Origin of Species* appeared, that is, in 1925, a high-school teacher in Tennessee, John Scopes, was dragged into court as a defendant for teaching Darwin's theory of evolution in class [Translator's note: the original sentence is garbled here (因在课堂上讲解达尔文进化论的被告, literally "because of the defendant of teaching Darwin's theory of evolution in class"); translated by the intended sense], put on trial, and finally fined 90 dollars—this is the famous "Monkey Trial" in history (The Scopes Case, also called "monkey trial") [[2](#footnote_1_435 "On July 13, 2000, CNN ran a feature report on this, titled "The debate goes on."")].
>
> Although the "Monkey Trial" ruling applied only to Tennessee, it was not until 1968 that the U.S. high court ruled, on the basis of the First Amendment, that schools could teach evolution, because it is science.
>
> In 1987, a case from Louisiana revived the controversy. In the end the high court ruled that "requiring schools that teach evolution also to allow the teaching of creationism" was unconstitutional.
>
> In 1999, the Kansas Board of Education voted to remove evolution as a tested subject from standardized tests. Some experts thought this was a very effective way to stop teachers from teaching evolution, because students wouldn't be tested on it.
>
> Textbooks in Alabama carry this statement: "Evolution is a theory that some scientists believe, not a fact."
>
> In Minnesota, a teacher who held that creationism was solid science was persuaded to leave for criticizing evolution in class. This teacher took the school to court.
>
> On December 20, 2005, the U.S. federal district court in Pennsylvania ruled that the "intelligent design" theory, which holds that living things were designed by some highly intelligent designer, is a religious idea, and that teaching it in science classes in public schools violates the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Most articles on this topic always start from the premise that religion and science are opposed to each other, trying to use these events to prove the vast and evil power of religion. As for religion itself, I have my own understanding and views, but even though I'm personally a so-called "person without faith," I won't oppose "freedom of belief"; at the same time, I shouldn't, and can't, force anyone to give up their faith.

In fact, religion and science aren't necessarily opposed. If religion and science were completely opposed, there'd be no way to reasonably explain this fact: Copernicus, Galileo, Darwin, Newton and many other giants all had firm religious faith. In fact, even today, there are undoubtedly still many scientists on this Earth who have very firm religious faith—though it's hard for us to get an exact percentage.

Like science, religion is also a tool people use to "think about" this world and "explain" this world; it's just that in explaining the physical world (for example, the origin of life, the mechanics of the motion of celestial bodies), modern science has gradually replaced religion. Religious forces are still vast today; it's just that the focus of religion has shifted to another area that needs it more—the spiritual world (perhaps equivalent to what we often call "spiritual civilization").

In the ongoing controversy between "evolution" and "creationism" (and creationism's variant, "intelligent design," also called "divine design"), both sides of the dispute are convinced of their own views. And the truly key difference is that Darwin's supporters, if they really support him firmly after understanding thoroughly, are all people able to use the power of the mind to break free of the limits of their own perception. Darwin's opponents are people whose mental power isn't yet developed enough to break free of the limits of their own perception; they can't correctly understand and fully use the new tool of thinking—scientific methodology—to think about problems, and don't even realize that this is exactly why they reject science.

Today, contrary to the creationist view, serious scientific journals have never published reports refuting evolution. In the mid-1990s, George W. Gilchrist of the University of Washington surveyed thousands of journals listed in the primary literature, hoping to find articles on "divine design" or creationism. He searched hundreds of thousands of scientific reports and didn't find a single report on creationism. Later, Barbara Forrest of Southeastern Louisiana University and Lawrence M. Krauss of Case Western Reserve University spent several years independently conducting the same survey, and also came back empty-handed [[3](#footnote_2_435 "Scientific American")]. It can be said that all serious scientists today should believe and be able to understand evolution, although they may equally have serious religious faith.

We know that each of us is full of fear inside, and all fear actually comes from our fear of the unknown. So fear is eternal, because we can never know everything. Thomas Sowell's analogy is especially ingenious. He says that in the vast and infinite space of the unknown, our "knowledge" is only like the stars in it, and the gaps between the stars are who knows how many times bigger than the stars themselves. So we need "faith," "hope," "love," "miracles," even the "prodigies, feats of strength, disorder and spirits" [[4](#footnote_3_435 "On this point Confucius was impressive: in that era he could actually see clearly the pointlessness of "prodigies, feats of strength, disorder and spirits." However, in a 2006 issue of Guangming Daily, someone said it should actually be punctuated like this: "The Master did not speak, strange force disorder spirit," meaning "Confucius stopped talking, for fear that exerting his strength would scatter his concentrated spirit."")] that Confucius did not speak of, and other such things that scholars call "necessary fictions" (necessary fiction), to fill these gaps before we feel at ease.

So it's not very meaningful to discuss, as many people love to, "what exactly Einstein's religious beliefs were," or "whether Einstein had religious beliefs at all." Because even Einstein would have fear, or let's say awe. Because, like everyone, he too had to face the unknown—even if he knew far more than all his contemporaries, everything he knew, compared with everything unknown to him, was just one water molecule in the ocean. So it's not surprising even if he had faith; and even if he had faith, what he believed in was surely not the god believed in by those who reject science.

What would humans be like if they couldn't read, couldn't record, couldn't express themselves, couldn't think? The following story circulates widely [[5](#footnote_4_435 "On checking, this story should most likely be just a teaching aids story. David Gardner's comment on fool.com is quite meaningful: Dan recently had forwarded to him one of those extremely amusing (and enlightening) Psych 101 experiment stories that makes its own important point. As this was forwarded to him, neither he nor I could verify the exact study, but even if it never occurred (and I like to think it did), there is spiritual truth here, dear Fools — and I regard spiritual truth as a deeper thing, in its own way, than scientific truth.")]:

> [Translator's note: quoted by the author: a widely circulated story, with his own parenthetical asides; not counted as Li Xiaolai's own words.] Five monkeys were shut in a cage, with a bunch of bananas hanging above. The experimenters prepared boiling water; as soon as any monkey touched the bananas, scalding water would immediately be poured on that monkey. First one monkey tried to get the bananas and was scalded; after that, each monkey, after the same attempt a few times, found it was always so. So the monkeys stopped trying to get the bananas.
>
> Then the experimenters took one of the monkeys away and put in a new monkey. This new monkey saw the bananas and of course immediately wanted to get them. As a result, before the scientists could even pour the water, the other four monkeys gave the new monkey a fierce beating. After being beaten a few times, the new monkey also stopped trying to get the bananas—afraid of being beaten again.
>
> After that, the experimenters took another monkey away and put in another new monkey. This new monkey saw the bananas and was also impatient to get them; of course, everything was as before: what awaited it was a fierce beating from the other four monkeys. So this newcomer didn't dare touch the bananas either.
>
> The funniest thing was that the monkey beaten last time hit hardest this time. (The other monkeys perhaps did it out of protectiveness; this monkey surely did it out of revenge—because) though it had never been doused with boiling water.
>
> In the end, all five of the original monkeys in the cage had been replaced. These five monkeys now didn't know the boiling water existed; they knew only one thing—whoever dared touch that bunch of bananas got a fierce beating straight away. (Their behavior had nothing to do with protectiveness; it was all out of revenge!)

This story is said to show how traditions form. In fact, this experiment can only partly show how certain absurd traditions form. Many traditions that seem to make no sense today were indeed once correct, or once closest to correct. What this story can really let us see is how important language, writing and logical thinking are for the correct transmission of knowledge. Setting aside for now the question of this story's truth, let's continue to imagine: if the monkeys could talk, they wouldn't need to beat anyone. If the monkeys could write, then no matter how many times and how many were replaced, the newcomers wouldn't need to be beaten—let alone beaten innocently. If the monkeys could actually use logic completely, perhaps they would eventually think of a way to avoid the boiling water and eat the bananas, and might even come to despise the people doing the experiment because of it.

Speaking of the importance of writing, I can't help spending a bit more space, at the risk of being thought too long-winded, to insert one more example. The following is a clip from the film *The Count of Monte Cristo*; I've watched this little clip countless times, and every time it gives me goosebumps all over.

> Edmond Dantès, stuck in the dungeon, finally meets Abbé Faria, who dug for six years but unfortunately dug into another cell.
>
> Later, Abbé Faria asks Edmond to help him dig a tunnel: In return for you help, I offer something priceless…
>
> – My freedom? Edmond's eyes light up at once.
>
> Freedom can be taken away. Abbé Faria, rather disdainful, goes on: As you well know, I offer knowledge, everything I have learned, I will teach you economics, mathematics, philosophy, science…
>
> Edmond suddenly finds something else worth getting excited about: … to read and write?
>
> Abbé Faria [Translator's note: the original writes 利亚神甫, dropping the first character of 法利亚 ("Faria"); translated by the intended sense] is taken aback for a moment, realizes this is a fellow who can't read a single character, and, rather helplessly: … of course.
>
> Edmond can't possibly refuse now: When do we start?

Because they had no sufficiently refined language, and no writing to use, those monkeys couldn't possibly communicate and discuss effectively. So the monkeys were unlikely to have the chance to develop complete logical thinking, let alone "think scientifically." So the monkeys could never in the end figure out what the relationship between the bananas and the boiling water was; they only reached one conclusion—the bananas must not be touched—and as for why not, that was completely distorted. Looking only at results without investigating causes, or explaining causes wildly—what a dangerous way of thinking and acting that is! As the saying goes, "empiricism kills."

Having got this far, we've touched on the greatest obstacle in every learning process, or in the process of transmitting knowledge—the limits of "empiricism." Everyone is more or less an empiricist, because, as mentioned earlier, everyone's most basic means of acquiring knowledge is through "experience." Empiricism applies at a certain level; its important value can't be completely denied. But at the same time, the fundamental limits of "empiricism" must be recognized clearly.

**First, individual experience is limited.** An especially telling example is the so-called "photic sneeze reflex" ([Photic sneeze reflex](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photic_sneeze_reflex)). We now know this is a trait passed on through genetic inheritance, and about 17% to 35% of people have this "symptom." The currently more credible explanation is that the perceptions of the eyes and nose are governed by the same trigeminal nerve, so defensive reactions to strong stimuli get mixed up, causing sneezes. Specifically, when strong sunlight enters through the eyes, the nasal cavity mistakes it for a stimulus to itself, and so tries to expel the foreign matter in the form of a sneeze. Aristotle mentioned this phenomenon in Book 33 of his *Problems*, but although Aristotle had experienced it himself, he couldn't explain it correctly at the time; harder still, anyone reading Aristotle's words had at least a 65% chance of being unable to understand the phenomenon recorded in those words through his own experience.

In 1798, the English chemist John Dalton (John Dalton) published his famous "Extraordinary Facts Relating to the Vision of Colours" ("Extraordinary facts relating to the vision of colours"). Only from then on did scientists begin to study the phenomenon of "color blindness" and give it a more comprehensive and more scientific explanation. Statistics show that at least 3% of people have difficulty distinguishing colors. Yet it's easy to imagine [Translator's note: the original writes 想想 ("think a bit"); 想象 ("imagine") is meant; translated by the intended sense] that before this, color-blind people couldn't get any understanding from others; the most they could get was probably mockery.

At other times, being unable to break through one's own limited personal experience to understand the things and people around one always brings astonishing disasters. On December 1, 2004, Chinese officials for the first time publicly released a "white paper on homosexuality," stating that China currently has more than 10 million sexually active gay men. In some open Western countries, about 5 to 7 [Translator's note: the original omits the unit here; "percent" is evidently meant] of men admit they are gay or have homosexual tendencies. The figure for women is slightly lower. And according to the internationally recognized figure, that homosexuals make up 2% to 5% of the total population, the total number of homosexuals in mainland China exceeds 40 million. Moreover, this proportion is relatively constant; the homosexual population doesn't decrease or increase because of social repression or tolerance; there's only the difference between hidden and visible.

Homosexuality doesn't exist only today, nor did it never happen in history. Nor is there any evidence that the proportion of homosexuals is increasing. Yet the tragedies caused merely because most people can't break through the limits of their own experience are unimaginable. In Iran, Mauritania, Saudi Arabia, Sudan and Oman, being caught in same-sex sexual acts brings the death penalty; Pakistan sentences two years to life imprisonment, plus flogging; Malaysia can sentence up to twenty years; the UAE fourteen years; Bangladesh seven years; Libya three to five years; Algeria two months to two years in prison; but Egypt, Indonesia and Iraq have no relevant penalties. Some countries have even set detailed legal provisions such as "two people of the same sex lying together naked: 99 lashes" and "men kissing men: 60 lashes."

In Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Tunisia, Yemen and other countries, homosexuality is regarded as a crime. Not long ago, a teenager in Cairo was sentenced to 17 years in prison, including 2 years of forced labor, for logging onto a gay website and posting his personal information. Iran once publicly executed two teenagers, charged with engaging in same-sex sexual acts. Since Khomeini came to power in Iran in 1979, more than four thousand gay men and lesbians have been executed. "In Iran we don't have homosexuals like in your country," Ahmadinejad answered in 2006 at Columbia University in the United States when asked about his country's recent execution of two gay men. "In Iran, we don't have this phenomenon," he went on. "I don't know who's told you we have it." These words drew a burst of laughter and boos from the roughly 700 people in the audience.

**Second, collective experience is limited.** The root of the limits of collective experience lies in the limited human lifespan. There's as yet no solid evidence that any creature belonging to humankind can live beyond 200 years. Yet even a span as long as 200 years is truly insignificant [Translator's note: the original writes 为不足道; 微不足道 ("insignificant") is meant; translated by the intended sense] for the accumulation and digestion of knowledge. From the Greek philosopher Aristarchus guessing in the third century BC that the sun should be the center of the world to Copernicus proposing heliocentrism took about 1,800 years; from Aristotle recording in Book 33 of the *Problems* that "strong light may cause sneezing" to scientists now proposing a relatively credible explanation, more than 2,300 years have passed.

The real reason Darwin's theory of evolution is, even today, a scientific theory truly understood and firmly believed by only a few is that it is knowledge that can't be obtained through personal experience alone, even knowledge that the experience of the whole human population itself can't cover. Who among humans has the ability to personally experience the whole process of evolution from our common ancestor with the monkeys all the way to today? If anyone really could go through the whole thing, he'd see that some of his relatives are still monkeys today, while other relatives slowly became gorillas, and some relatives of those gorillas slowly became chimpanzees, and some of the chimpanzees' relatives later became orangutans; some relatives of the orangutans finally became today's humans…… But today, humanity as a whole would need at least 2 million years to have the chance to see certain gorillas evolve into chimpanzees.

Facing knowledge they can't experience personally, people often harbor fear, because people fear the unknown. And when groups face knowledge they can't experience, it often shows up as frenzy. There's a very incisive saying: "Much of the time, people's kindness comes from weakness, and their brutality comes [Translator's note: the original is garbled here (出只不过来自于, roughly "comes merely comes from"); translated by the intended sense] merely from fear." Copernicus knew this deeply, so it was only at [Translator's note: the original writes 知道 ("know"); 直到 ("only at, until") is meant; translated by the intended sense] the moment of his death that he dared formally publish *On the Revolutions of the Heavenly Spheres* on heliocentrism. Copernicus's supporter Bruno was a bit green, or showed a bit more courage, and as a result was burned to death.

**Finally, not only is there knowledge that can't be obtained through individual or collective experience; there's also knowledge that runs counter to existing experience.** We often say "experience is precious," but at certain times so-called "experience" is precisely the stumbling block on our road of progress, even a chasm we may meet as we progress that, with the slightest slip, may be impossible to cross.

When people understand new knowledge, they often rely on [Translator's note: the original writes 以来 ("since"); 依赖 ("rely on") is meant; translated by the intended sense] past experience. So in pedagogy, "analogy" is one of the teaching methods most highly valued by many scholars and experts. Primary-school teachers use a boiled egg as an analogy for the structure of the Earth, so that primary-school pupils immediately understand knowledge they can't possibly experience personally—who is able to drill to the center of the Earth to take a look? Middle-school teachers use the structure of the solar system as an analogy for the internal structure of the atom, so that middle-school students immediately understand knowledge they can't possibly experience personally—for quite a long period, not every school could have a field-ion microscope capable of observing the internal structure of the atom. More amazing still, this time the middle-school students rely on knowledge and experience that can't be obtained through individual experience—the structure of the solar system.

However, the precondition for using analogy to understand new or unknown knowledge is that this knowledge is close or similar to some "existing experience." But to some extent, sometimes even the magical tool of "analogy" is powerless, because there are always times when the knowledge we face and try to understand runs counter to existing experience.

Observe a little and you'll know that almost all the major "communication barriers" in daily life are essentially caused by the two sides being unable to make each other understand knowledge or information that runs counter to their experience. Without exaggeration, the solutions offered in almost all the books on *Communication Skills* now in bookstores and libraries don't really hit the nail on the head [Translator's note: the original writes 说道, with 道 ("way"); 说到 ("hit, reach") is meant; translated by the intended sense]. Transmitting such knowledge and information can't be solved easily and thoroughly merely by "considering the problem from the other side's standpoint." Although "considering the problem from the other side's standpoint" is indeed already a very useful and hard-to-master skill, what about when we face (or "turn our backs on" may be more accurate) "problems neither side's standpoint can take into account"? Although at such times we may not even know what the problem actually is, one thing is almost certain: such problems not only really exist, but are often crucial.

Clinton's wife Hillary observed this phenomenon: "So-called good leaders can take people where they want to go; so-called great leaders can take people where they should go but never thought of going." Being able to think like this and put it like this shows that our classmate Hillary not only has an outstanding IQ (reportedly over 147), but also mental power strong enough—strong enough to understand those "great leaders."

As I see it, the crux of all educational failure is also based on the same reason. When exploring the unknown and seeking truth, almost all difficulties come from how to correctly understand knowledge that "may even run counter to existing experience." From this angle, religion of the past no longer has the ability to bear this responsibility, and must give way to the methods and means that a few people have already grasped, are using, and are perfecting—science. Scientific method is a topic far beyond what my articles can discuss; my suggestion is that all students should seriously read at least three books each on the history of science and on scientific method.

From this angle, humans may be one of the most awkward species on Earth: long evolution has brought humans to today's height, yet at the instant each person is born, he actually stands at almost the same starting point as other animals, and his mind has to evolve from zero. In the rest of his life he has to spend quite a long time, through dull study and repeated practice, to acquire the ability to use writing (some people, through effort, can use several languages). Only with the ability to write can he, through reading, break free of all kinds of limits and gain more knowledge. And then he has to learn logic and think about problems through scientific method, and only then can he grow up (or, better, to use "evolve" as the analogy) into a human in the true sense—and of course there must be a considerable proportion, definitely more than half, of "humans" who actually evolve less than halfway along this road and then go off thinking themselves right.

People who see through to the essence, if they're even a little fragile about education, will be extremely disappointed, even desperate. Because, obviously, some people haven't fully evolved, yet were actually screened in to become teachers. I can't imagine such a picture:

> A big monkey strenuously "teaching" a group of little monkeys—if it were a big gorilla teaching a group of little monkeys, that would at least be a bit better. What can be imagined is what cruel and unimaginable hardships those little monkeys who eventually evolve into humans must go through along the way?!

This analogy seems too sharp-tongued and very hard to accept. But I have to admit this analogy is not only vivid but accurate, and made without any intention of offending anyone. Of course, I reckon nobody would be willing [Translator's note: the original writes 原意 ("original meaning"); 愿意 ("be willing") is meant; translated by the intended sense] to see themselves in it.

It's said that God, to keep the ancient Babylonians from building the Tower of Babel, made people speak different languages. In fact, the language barrier has never been "insurmountable"; at most it's "hard to surmount." Marco Polo, more than seven hundred years ago, without "Kingsoft PowerWord," not knowing the "Ebbinghaus forgetting curve," and neither "reverse" nor "crazy," learned the most elusive, easily forgotten, hard-to-learn (elusive) language on Earth—Chinese. Today, more and more people on Earth master several languages, but another obstacle to building the Tower of Babel has finally surfaced—the limits of "empiricism," which many "humans" may never be able to break free of in their whole lives.

At this turning point, "analogy" still has magical power. The most crucial first step is to remember and understand the examples above, and then keep firmly in mind that this world really does contain "knowledge that runs counter to existing experience." Then turn this sentence into existing experience, and use it to draw analogies with the unknown. Then you must invest a great deal of time and energy in learning and mastering "scientific methodology," struggling to evolve into a human in the true sense. Of course, it must be restated: everyone has the right to give up evolving.

---

Footnotes:

1. Knowledge and decision, by Thomas Sowell, p.98. [[↩](#identifier_0_435)]
2. On July 13, 2000, CNN ran a feature report on this, titled "[The debate goes on](http://archives.cnn.com/2000/LAW/07/13/scopes.monkey.trial/)." [[↩](#identifier_1_435)]
3. [Scientific American](http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000D4FEC-7D5B-1D07-8E49809EC588EEDF) [[↩](#identifier_2_435)]
4. On this point Confucius was impressive: in that era he could actually see clearly the pointlessness of "prodigies, feats of strength, disorder and spirits." However, in [a 2006 issue of Guangming Daily](http://www.gmw.cn/content/2006-03/05/content_379400.htm), someone said it should actually be punctuated like this: "The Master did not speak, strange force disorder spirit," meaning "Confucius stopped talking, for fear that exerting his strength would scatter his concentrated spirit." [[↩](#identifier_3_435)]
5. On checking, this story should most likely be just a teaching aids story. [David Gardner's comment on fool.com](http://www.fool.com/portfolios/rulebreaker/1999/rulebreaker991005.htm) is quite meaningful: Dan recently had forwarded to him one of those extremely amusing (and enlightening) Psych 101 experiment stories that makes its own important point. As this was forwarded to him, neither he nor I could verify the exact study, but even if it never occurred (and I like to think it did), there is spiritual truth here, dear Fools — and I regard spiritual truth as a deeper thing, in its own way, than scientific truth. [[↩](#identifier_4_435)]

Copyright: © LookMinds. Our own edited text and translation, not a substitute for the original; rights in the original belong to the author and the platform. Please see the original link.