The implication of this idea is rather astounding, actually, and I take no credit in writing this, but merely performing a
node rescue of some
blather that
Thomas Miconi had written about the
Theory of Relativity. I cannot imagine how lost our models of the universe would be without eyesight as a guide for experimentation. Take, for example, the early atomic discoveries by
William Crookes,
J.J. Thomson,
Robert Millikan, or the later discoveries about radioactivity by
Ernest Rutherford. Even simple mathematics requires sight, so no
calculus or
geometry.
What if humans had a sensory organ that could detect
gravitational force? Would our fundemental understanding of time-space be different? More importantly, what about the things we can't detect or measure; our blindness might be impairing our ability to come up with better theories of the universe.
Response: m_turner:
None of these concepts involve the faculties of our vision. Advanced concepts in math and physics do not require sight
Your lofty ideas are simple contrivances to explain how someone could understand principles without the benefit of sight. They do not, however, take into account that the initial discovery of these theories most definitely relied on, and in fact would have been impossible without, sight. I would not argue that someone without ears cannot speak or someone without eyes could not write, but that language came about after our ability to hear, just as painting came about after our ability to see.
Also, Stephan Hawking was not always crippled. In fact, most of his learning was achieved when he had complete control of his body.
Response: Baffo
The inner ear doesn't detect gravity or acceleration, just the changes in the body's movement or air pressure. If I was in space and a dense mass passed by me, I wouldn't feel it, I'd just be drawn toward it.