Is Ignorance Bliss?

Question:  What if some people who support Carroll's view on the aesthetic appreciation of nature choose not to learn more about nature because they believe that ignorance is bliss?

Carlson claims that there is a positive correlation between knowledge and aesthetic appreciation of nature. He believes that the more knowledge you have of natural science, the more fully you can appreciate nature aesthetically. My question, however, is that what if some people would rather not know why certain things occur in nature that they view aesthetically?

Carroll claims that people do not need knowledge to appreciate nature aesthetically. He believes that people can appreciate nature just as fully without knowledge as people with knowledge about natural science. In class we discussed how in many cases, people might not be knowledgeable about nature, but after becoming very interested in something in nature, be inspired to learn more about it. This means that people could start out supporting Carroll, but then attain the desire to learn more about something in nature, thereby supporting Carlson's view.

However, what if someone doesn't want to learn more about something they are interested in because they believe that ignorance is bliss? For example, someone might aesthetically appreciate the bright colors and patterns of an animal. However, if they find out that the animal is brightly colored because it is poisonous, they might appreciate the animal less. This would mean that in this situation, there is a negative correlation between knowledge and aesthetic appreciation. The more knowledge one attains, the less they appreciate the object in nature. Another reason why some people would rather stay ignorant to natural science is because they believe that learning the reason why some objects in nature are the way they are would ruin the magic for them. For example, a lot of people aesthetically appreciate they way the leaves change color in the fall. However, if they learned the reason why they change color, they might not appreciate the leaves as much because there is no longer any mystery to them. People who believe that ignorance is bliss have a more romantic approach to the aesthetic appreciation of nature, while people like Carlson have a more rationalist approach.