leyline

A simple question. Suppose mankind evolved without eyesight. You know, the planet was really foggy and dark or something, and too damp for fire or whatever. Would the history of science still be possible? Would the theory of relativity still be developed for example by using geometry in mathematics?

Careful mind. Science is meant to be objective.

Personally I don’t know, but my best initial guess is science wouldn’t get very far if at all.

jpbrooks

Science would definitely be possible in the absence of visual sense data, but it probably would have taken a longer time to develop. Scientific progress might be extremely slow prior to (for example) the development of technology to convert electromagnetic radiation patterns into sound patterns in the frequency range of human hearing. But there is no way to know how long the development of such technology would take, (or what scientific discoveries would be made along the way).

I have to run.

River

Science would probably develop faster if vision didnt exist. Because, so much of what we know as science can not be verified anyway visually. Plus, without vision, our other senses would compensate and overdevelop. With 4 or 5 overdevelped senses, we would have more insight and intuition about the scientific method.


_River

leyline

hmmm... interesting replies.

i wonder what a 3,4,5 right angled triangle, pointy end to the left, with the 5 side horizontal sounds like?

rainbow walking

rw: Do, Ray, Me, Fa, So, La, Te, Do

eh

I can't imagine how any notion of geometry could be formed without vision. You can mathematically define a geometric object, but without vision, there would be no meaningful concept to attach to it. And with no geometry, there is no cosmology and no field theories.

Further, how exactly do you perform experiments in a world without vision? Astronomy would obviously not exist, and it's doubtful that a blind civilization would be out building atom smashers with no way to interpret the data. So if science would even possible, it would not be able to cover such a large field as science on earth.

jpbrooks

No, I didn't mean to suggest that the sense of hearing would be the only (or even the main) sense that we would have to rely on. In the absence of vision, we could come to know about geometric relationships by touching objects of various shapes. The inability to see objects would not curtail our ability to understand geometric or numerical relationships between things and draw inferences based on that understanding. (This reminds me of a recent conversation I had concerning how people who are blind from birth learn to play musical instruments.) Without vision, we would only have a problem obtaining information about objects that are outside the scope or range of our other senses, which is why I mentioned the conversion of electromagnetic energy into sound patterns as a possible way to extend the scope of what we would be able to sense without eyesight. We would, for example, come to know about electromagnetic energy first (perhaps) by feeling the heat that is radiated by hot objects, and then setting up experiments with such objects that would extend our knowledge of the form of electromagnetic energy that those objects radiate.

The situation would be much worse, however, if we had neither eyesight nor the sense of touch. In that case, it would be difficult to imagine how scientific inquiry could proceed. Though even in this case, I couldn't say, with certainty, that science wouldn't progress at all.

sophie

I think we would have ended up playing with ourselves more, since the only thing we would see is the inside of our minds. Then following the line of this argument we would have developed more towards humanity and less towards scientiific prowess.

I would have probably been the greatest lover, smelling all those sensual smells, and rubbing against all those x-rated partswords.

Yes indeed, who would have thought of science and who would have needed to smash atoms when a smelly old cave full of love was readily available. Probably head-bashing would have replaced the desire to chase after atomic theories.

leyline

OOoo the things we imagine when we close our eyes! You sound like a fun girl when the bulb pops Sophie.

Its not an easy question to answer of course, whether by science or feeling about in the dark. I wonder what other philosophical implications might follow if the answer were no?

Celsus

The ability to reliably find one's way around in hostile environments full of predators is a prerequisite for survival. If you want to know how animals cope without sight, take a look at bats, Ganges river dolphins and other near-blind animals. Each has a sophisticated detection system suitable for the environment they live in. Any animal without it would be a sitting duck (as plants are, unless they evolve sophisticated defense mechanisms or develop them in cooperation with animals (like acacias and ants). Science would have been different, but most animals are never truly "blind" except in the narrowest sense.

Joel