4  Epistephobia

(Modified on 2026-08-11)
794 words

…he that increaseth knowledge, increaseth sorrow.

— Ecclesiastes

Where ignorance is bliss, ’tis folly to be wise.

— Thomas Gray

Ignorance is strength

— Big Brother

Epistephobia: The Fear of Knowledge

A common complaint is that science contributes to the “demystification” of the world. That is, knowledge makes the world less rich, less compelling, less magical, or less beautiful. This is especially common when science investigates humanity’s most cherished experiences, like love, religion, and art.

Biologists tell us that “love” is nature’s way of promoting pair-bonding and procreation. This may be biologically true, but it captures none of the beauty, power, and deep meaning we experience through love. Similarly, attempts to account for the sublime experiences of music will inevitably be disappointing because they trivialize the profound.

However, consider the case of modern astronomy. In ancient times, people looked up into the sky and saw all sort of mythical objects and creatures. They thought that the movement of the planets affected human behavior on earth. Modern astronomy has discarded these colorful and rich ideas. But modern astronomy replaced the stories of the heavens with a different set of stories: of enormous objects at unfathomable distances, of quasars and galaxies, of black holes and big bangs. Can we really say that the stories provided by modern astronomy are less compelling, magical, or beautiful than traditional beliefs about the heavens?

Another point of view comes from the world of theatrical magic. The famed Broadway magician, Doug Henning, suggested that only the magician gets to see the true magic. Theatrical magic involves ordinary manipulation of physical objects, but done in a way that leaves viewers astonished. For the magician, there is nothing mystical about the physical objects or their manipulation: the real mystery resides in the fact that viewers can be astonished.

Similarly, music is “just” sound—the physical jiggling of air molecules. What is astonishing is not the sound but what it evokes in listeners. Part of understanding the magic of music, is realizing the extraordinarily pedestrian nature of sound. Like the magician, stripping away the mystification may be the first step in allowing us to see the true magic of music.

Are you Epistephobic?

It is perfectly reasonable for a person to say “I don’t want to know about that.” “I don’t want to know how music works.” However, curiosity is also a human characteristic. It is perfectly reasonable for a person to say “I want to know about that.” “I want to know how music works.” If you are reading this, then you are probably in the latter camp. But are you really?

When we seek to learn, we need to be prepared for disappointments. We need to be prepared for “demystification.” We need to be prepared to be wrong—even about things we care about, and even about things we feel are important.

Cherished beliefs

You almost certainly have opinions about how music should be:

  • music should be original;
  • music should be sophisticated;
  • music should be skillful;
  • music should be real or authentic;
  • music should be timeless;
  • music should be deep;
  • music should be important;
  • music should be good for people;
  • music should fight the power.
  • etc.

Are you prepared to find (and accept) that your beliefs might be wrong? That when you dig down deeply, they are all just arbitrary value judgements signalling your values to your social network?

People love to think that music is “objectively” good for you: That it makes you smarter or more moral; that it heals you; etc. Would you accept evidence that they are wrong? Conversely, many people think that the wrong kind of music is bad for you. (In fact, these sorts of ideas go back thousands of years. Aristotle discussed how the Phrygian scale was corrupting the youth!) Would you accept scientific evidence that they are wrong? Would you accept evidence that they are right?

Like the biology of love, many might view biological explanations of music as unsavory. Still there is a lot of theory/research regarding music and evolution. Many people (including serious researchers) love the idea that music is an adaptive phenomenon that improved our ancestors’ evolutionary fitness by improving group coordination. Music is an objective good for our species! However, there is great debate here. Most evolutionary biologists believe that “group selection” doesn’t work/happen—genetic competition is individual, not group focused—, which suggests that some theories about musical evolution are wrong. Many scholars (like me) consider musical enjoyment to be a “spandrel”—an artifact of the layout of our perceptual and cognitive system, which our ancestors learned how to exploit. Psychologist Steven Pinker (1997) famously called music nothing but useless “auditory cheesecake.” How do you feel about that?

If you’re not ready to accept you are wrong…maybe you are just a little bit epistephobic after all. If you are truly afraid that knowledge might spoil your experience of music, then don’t engage in music research!