Getting back to our quest, which from the beginning has been to find the Origin of Man, we find ourselves unwittingly in the position of Socrates. We have consulted the experts to whom we were sent, and in return we have received what, upon close inspection, appears to be little more than decorated (and applauded) guessing. Though we are always on the lookout for her, and know her beyond doubt when she affords us a glimpse, we search here not for Truth in general, as Socrates did, but merely ONE truth, about the Origin of Man. Like Socrates’, our criticism is justifiable because when these specialized fields of expertise invade day-to-day society, as for instance when they become law, guide progress or science or schools, and overall influence society, and the family, they have extended BEYOND the bounds of their discipline. They have oozed out into the world and can now be critiqued and, indeed, criticized, from other and wider perspectives. Socrates’ questioning of all the experts he could find made him many enemies, and I think it is a foregone conclusion that it was the primary reason for the charges that brought him to the Athenian court. Experts do not like to be told they are wrong, especially by people not trained in that expertise. By questioning the Big Bang Theory, Evolution, Archaeology and its dating methods, Anthropology, astronomy, and numerous other scientific and religious views, we have also, like Socrates, made quite a few experts angry. Unable or perhaps unwilling to answer our questions, their response is to question our credentials. Since Truthopia began, in fact, the only argument against us had been along this “we are the authority that’s why” line. This just isn’t good enough for me nor should it be for you my participant and reader. On numerous occasions I personally and purposefully have stressed my own limitations, and emphasized that I am not an expert in any particular of these fields, that I merely seek to be educated by Those Who Know.
Theory can support, directly, only other theory. You may propose any scenario or scheme or fantasy you like, and upon it build further crystal sandcastles and elaborate imaginative phantasms. You can justify it further with even more made-up words and concepts, and eventually, as the computer world seems to demonstrate, you can via theory and imagination, and maybe a few hallucinogens, construct a whole new “virtual,” or some-odd other, type of world. But the moment you try to apply these concepts to the real, waking world, where other living human beings exist, you create a whole new set of circumstances and a whole new set of interactions and relationships to consider. Your enterprise now extends beyond the scope of a roomful of hackers.
Take for example this aforementioned virtual world, a computer-based multiplayer world people play, one meant to mimic real life. Much theory goes into building this world. The programmers have to consider graphics, sound, game play, processing power, internet speed, and so on, when designing it. Before getting into actual game rules and play at all a whole firmament must be set into place. This firmament is the field in which the game will take place. In a virtual world the firmament is in cyberspace, in a real world, regular space. Where the real world’s firmament is composed of restrictions such as involve the limits of sight and perception of distance, the impositions of gravity, velocity, and laws of thermodynamics, the virtual world’s firmament must work with unmitigated constants also. For the layman, one not an expert in the computer field, the “way” and “how” even the simplest multiplayer game is created sounds like a foreign language. The algorithms and if-then propositions, the calculations based on measurements the game makers themselves invent, to the uninitiated, look like unfathomable hieroglyphics. For our purposes here this virtual world can stand for any theory, and particularly, any scientific theory. I have no ethical problem with theory in the sense. It is done by experts in the field, and so long as it stays theoretical, it can do whatever it wants, base its system on whatever premises, shady or not.
At some point, however, the creators of this game-theory want it to “go live.” They want people and so society and the world to participate in this game. They want to be the chosen game everyone plays. When this happens, as any programmer will tell you, further problems can and do arise, and must be accounted for, either by changing code or the game itself. This is not unlike what happens when scientific theories are applied. When these difficulties are encountered, and they almost always are, the theorists sometimes change the situation and sometimes change the theory to account for the discrepancies. Now once a person not involved with the creation of the game becomes a player, that player must also be accounted for by the gamemakers, or makers of this theory. Human interaction is another whole and new ball game. Who is affected and in what way, what are the repercussions of playing, what are the benefits and risks involved with participation, etc., all these now become legitimate questions. Whereas before its public release the theory was just a mental exercise among friends, a hobby if you will, now it is a public fact and can be criticized at least where it intersects in public life. Your Big Bang Theory is fine at the We Teach Physics convention. Once it touches a school system or public home, or even mind of someone not involved, it must explain itself and answer in terms we can understand.
It boggles the mind to consider the breadth of distribution of these big, perhaps silly games. Saying or writing that such a game or theory is based on bad or unproven principles must be done with full acknowledgment of the scope of this participation. These games are so big that they appear immune to criticism, amenable with their constantly changing “truths,” by which they might, apparently, withstand any epistemological blow. How does one kill such a monster that keeps coming back to life? Regardless, I must keep my blood pressure down, so to continue our analogy, it should be noticeable to all, and a foregone conclusion, that aspects of this theoretical world are interacting, better to say creeping into, the real world. It is precisely at this point that theory becomes accountable to a “layman,” like me or anyone else with half a brain. When the game’s conclusions extend outside the game and reach non-players (non-believers) it may be criticized from even the non-players. It is the same principle behind Child Safety Laws, the almighty Seat Belt, and the Health Departments. That these “external” or “non-professional” critics are more or less ignorant of how the game was programmed really doesn’t nor shouldn’t make any difference at this point. I have no problem with your, let’s say, zombie game, and the silly needy folks who play it, until it is because of your game that my kids are being told zombies exist. Now you must prove the existence of these zombies, and to say they exist because the game says so is just plain gibberish. Yet this gibberish is used to justify many of the principles of theories like the Big Bang and EVOlution…
That old decrepit rat of an argument known as “where are your papers/credentials” hopefully now buried for good, I want to confirm a few definitions and maybe clear up a bit the ambiguity that is the title of this section. We men and women, we Men, might very well be individuals at bottom, by nature isolated, alone, and without equals, as Sartre might say. On the other hand, we may be at bottom, by nature, complex social creatures, as perhaps Aristotle might have meant when he called us “political animals.” Throughout this search to find the Origin of Man we have never really spent much time defining precisely what origin it is we seek. That is, we have not defined what we mean by “Man” as well as what we mean by “Origin.” Man, yes, means both men and women, but which men and women?
What is a Man? That is our next section.
