The dangers of knowledge?

Early on in Chapter 4, Lynch asserts that knowledge can sometimes be a bad--even innately destructive--influence. "Knowledge is power, and if power corrupts, absolute knowledge may corrupt absolutely." (I just need to get this out of the way: I found that statement a little humorous... the equation of cliches reminded me of that old "girls = evil" proof.) In the wrong hands, he says, knowledge can be plain scary--and even sometimes in the right ones.

For this reason, he states many times in the chapter that knowledge is dangerous, and that the truth can hurt. But even if a truth may hurt, that doesn't mean that its pursuit is reckless. And nuclear weapons--used as Lynch's prime example of how the truth is hurtful--also stand as an example of why it's often important to pursue it regardless of the pain, but not because truth is worth caring about for its own sake, either. We know that America wasn't the only state with a developing nuclear program, and we know that was a big reason that so much effort was put into our own, to get stuff working before anyone else did. Regardless of whether you think the use of America's nuclear weapons was wise or not, I'm sure most people would agree that there could have been much more devastating consequences had one of the Axis powers developed the technology first.

And therein lies the problem with assuming that the only choice when presented with a truth that hurts is either pursuing it or leaving it buried for eternity. Sooner or later, odds are the truth will be found, regardless of one person or group's actions. Newton was a genius, but without him, we'd still probably know about gravity--even if it took slightly longer to figure out.

So now I'm pretty sure I'm wading into some sort of undefinable moral ground, but not everyone treats the knowledge they obtain in the same way--some use it for good causes, others, not so much. And while many truths can hurt, those same truths can also unlock new things that are quite literally awesome. It often depends on the holder of the knowledge how the truths are used. So if you have good intentions*, it is imperative that you do get to these truths first--even if they have the potential to hurt. Otherwise, you're only making it that much more likely that someone else will do exactly that.

*I know when I say this, it's completely unverifiable and probably dangerous in its own right. Who are the good people? Who can we trust with dangerous knowledge? Well, we don't know. But if we're assuming that there are good people and people that are less good, even if we don't know who they are, we should still be rooting for them. Even if we can't really do anything about helping them.