The inner dialogue I had while running this afternoon prompted me to pose this question in hopes that several readers will ponder it and share some thoughts.
Which do you think best serves the curious mind, a telescope or a microscope?
I will let it sit a couple of days to see what response I get, then I will share my thoughts. Obviously, there is no right or wrong answer. I would just like to read some different perspectives.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
8 comments:
I'll bite...a microscope. I'd like to look at things I can touch and feel.
Thanks, Kenny. It is not a gag or a trick question. I just wonder how many folks would choose the ability to explore far-away worlds and how many would prefer to go deeper into the world that is close to us.
Microscope for me, too. I'm amazed at how tiny our world can be broken down. Of course, I am also amazed at the vastness of the universe...but I think the microscope would be my choice.
I too think microscope. I've been thinking about this for a while now. To me, there are more things to look at through a microscope than there are through a telescope.
I'm not sure... I think a microscope, too, though. Maybe because I'm more familiar with using them and enjoy seeing the details they show.
Ok im going to be the person I always am and put myself into two categories: Both. God created both worlds for a reason, and in turn, man who created both instruments, so since I don't really have to choose and both enthrall me equally: both. sorry.
And the winner is.....microscope. I will play devil's advocate and argue the other side. Of course, both micro and macro views have merit and each is more appropriate at various times. So each tool can ge great for discovery. The advantage of the telescope is viewing entire systems from a distance. To see distant planets, stars, and solar systems gives us a hint at the vastness of creation. For me, the appreciation of close scrutiny of the make-up of a leaf, for example, is much greater if I first have an idea of the tree that produced it and the system that extracts nutrients from the earth and even a broader view of the water cycle, etc. It seems to me that it is easier to move from the big picture to the details with understanding than to comprehend the individual details first then move to the grand scheme. As an example, if I drive a car around and then decide to take it apart to see how it works, then brake rotors, valve springs, and camshafts make more sense because I have an understanding of how each part contributes to the whole. If, on the other hand, I had never seen a car and happened on a camshaft, I could study it for a long time and in great detail without figuring out its purpose. The lobes and irregular shape of the camshaft would be fascinating and I might invent uses for it. But without understanding the larger context, I would miss the significance and potential. I also see an analogy that goes beyond the instruments. I think we tend to take a "micro" view of life and time when a "macro" view is more of a "God's eye view". If we could learn to view life as if we were sitting where God is, looking back at where we are, the difficult decisions might be much easier. Thanks for playing.
I"m going to enter late...
and before reading the comments my answer was telescope...
no deep reason why except for the fact that I've logged SEVERAL hours of my life in front of a microscope {being the science nerd that I am}, and if given the opportunity, I'd like to try my hand at something else...
Post a Comment