Apathetic young people and the theory of relativity

Ok apparently lately, Sarah = bored, because you're getting more posts than you know what to do with. Or maybe not. Maybe you know exactly what to do with all of these posts.

So anyway, I was shown an article the other day on Slate magazine (which is apparently where I get a lot of my post-fodder....and as a side note, post-fodder sounds like something you'd find on a farm). This article (which you can find here http://www.slate.com/id/2149368/) discusses a New York Times article that analyzes a 9/11 photograph that hadn's been released until recently. (So, to get all of you guys straight, this is a post that discusses an article, that discusses another article, that analyzes a photograph...got it?).

The photograph (which is shown on the Slate article) shows the World Trade Center burning in the background, while five 20 or 30 somethings sitting on the Brooklyn waterfront, seemingly chatting nonchalantly. At first blush, this photograph seems to show how completely callous my generation has become in the face of tragedy. Here is possibly the worst national tragedy that has happened since any of them have been born, but they're just hanging out and chatting as the whole thing is going on.

Now, the first thing that I thought when I saw this photograph and read the article was not, "god, these guys look like they're having a great time." To me, it didn't look like these five people were out on a stroll and just happened to sit down to discuss the latest in fashion, or music, or whatever people my age talk about. The first thing I wondered was, "I wonder what they're talking about?" To me, it looked like they were seriously discussing something, and given the backdrop to their conversation, I could only assume that they were analyzing what was going on. And I guess, given the situation, what else should they be doing? In their situation, I don't think I'd be running toward the buildings to help. And, I don't know, but I'd be willing to guess that most of NYC was pretty nonfunctional that day. What else would there be to do, other than observe, and discuss? Exactly like these people were doing.

So anyway, I found another article on Slate today (http://www.slate.com/id/2149508/?nav=tap3) that mirrors exactly the way I felt about this picture. (In summary, now I'm talking about an article that analyzes another article that discusses another article that analyzes a photograph.) So, I feel vindicated. Hooray for me. Other people agree with me.

And now for something completely different. It seems to me like there is a prevailing philosophy among the faculty here at Winona. At least among the faculty that I've had (which is a whopping 4). At least two or three times so far this week, I've heard a faculty make reference to the idea that just because something hasn't been proven yet, doesn't make it untrue. As simple as this idea is, I love that academics are willing to admit this. I feel like I've encountered so many "intelligent" people that are so stoic as far as what they hold to be true, and they won't admit that something that hasn't been proven has even the possiblity of being true. So many people say "prove it to me" in reference to wanting to know if something is true or not. So many people are skeptics about EVERYTHING. Now, I understand the value of a healthy dose of skepticism. Without skeptics, who would be around to question things as we know or believe them to be? But at the same time, 200 years ago, people knew, without a doubt, that time was fixed and constant. Now, with relativity, we know that time slows down, the closer someone gets to moving at the speed of light. 600 years ago, people knew that if they got sick, it was punishment from God for something bad they did. Now, we know about germ theory, and that sickness is caused by bacteria, or fungi, or viruses.

Anyway, I meant to get deeper into that, but I don't really want to ramble on anymore now. More random thoughts and ridiculousness later.