Notices
Results 1 to 18 of 18

Thread: The Structure of Science?

  1. #1 The Structure of Science? 
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    924
    The Structure of Science?

    The main philosophical problems of modern society are intimately associated with Tom and Jane’s enchantment with Science. Normal science is, for too many, an enchanted idol that is perceived as the savior of humanity. No matter what dastardly things humans may do, Science will save us.

    Science—normal science—as Thomas Kuhn labels it in “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions” moves forward in a “successive transition from one paradigm to another”. A paradigm defines the theory, rules and standards of practice. “In the absence of a paradigm or some candidate for paradigm, all of the facts that could possible pertain to the development of a given science are likely to seem equally relevant.”

    The Newtonian scientific paradigm was a mathematical, quantified, pattern capable of reducing reality to an atomic level. It’s ideal, if there was one, was man as a machine or more likely a cog in a machine. In such a science we lose the individual man and woman. Rousseau was offering something entirely different. It was holistic and non-reducible. It was a gestalt that included man as neutral manipulator of scientific experiments but also as a subject with values who was a totally thinking, feeling, free agent.

    “Rousseau showed that morality had to be instrumented, by man according to an ideal formulated by him; the science of man could only have meaning as an active ideal-type of science.” Newtonian paradigms left no room for such and ideal. It had no room for a holistic woman or man. The solution proposed by Rousseau was to make humanity first and science second; science was to be the servant of wo/man rather than wo/man as the servant of science.

    The paradigm of Newtonianism turned out to be a tougher nut than the Enlightenment could crack. Such individuals as Darwin and Spencer appeared on the scene and quickly humanity was sequestered again into the background by Science. Dewey’s long life time proved insufficient to the challenge and the reason why: “pragmatism contained no moral criteria by means of which a man-based value science could be instrumented.”

    Marx recognized the problem inherent in scientism and shifted ground from Rousseau’s ideal-type to the possible-type. Marx said that we should do what is possible and possible in our time. Marx advocated the victory of the laboring class.

    “What are the main problems of modern society; how can man’s situation in the world be improved?” Marx determined that the Newtonian paradigm was morally unedifying; the social problem was the alienation of man. But with Marx the ideal vision of the Enlightenment was swallowed up in the Revolution. The ideal of a full and free liberation of the human potential was destroyed in the Revolution.

    And therein lay the rub. What is a paradigm of normal science as Kuhn so succinctly wrote about and which, as a concept, was unrecognized in Kuhntonion form a century ago, but was nevertheless, even then, the heart of normal science.

    Kuhn says that practitioners of normal science have: a paradigm that makes a science normal when most if not all members agree upon a theory as being true. When this agreement breaks down then a new paradigm is agreed upon. The paradigm defines a map for action. The thing that separates a paradigm from some kind of, green light and red light group agreement about crossing the street is that there is more careful control, calculation, instrumentation, and a greater willingness to place before the world a conjecture to be evaluated as to its truth. A paradigm defines the theory, rules, and standards of practice.

    It seems that almost all domains of knowledge wish to emulate Science. Science for most people is technology and if questioned we would probably find that science means physics. We have placed Science on a very high pedestal because technology has been so successful. Every domain of knowledge wishes to be as good as Science.

    I suspect that the way to judge how well a domain of knowledge is like science is to discover if it does or does not have a paradigm. Like Kuhn notes in his book that without a paradigm any knowledge is as good as any other. Paradigm converts chaos into system.

    Many of the ideas and quotes in this OP are derived from Ernest Becker’s book “Beyond Alienation”. Me and Ernest agree that the “main philosophical problem for modern society” is that we need a paradigm for the “science of wo/man”. Have you a paradigm for this new science? Me and Ernest do but we disagree on some aspects.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Forum Professor sunshinewarrior's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    London
    Posts
    1,525
    I like your notion that paradigm converts chaos into system.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Somewhere near Beetlegeuse
    Posts
    205
    Quote Originally Posted by coberst
    It seems that almost all domains of knowledge wish to emulate Science.
    Based on what evidence are you making this claim, and emulate science in which respects(s)?

    Quote Originally Posted by coberst
    Science for most people is technology and if questioned we would probably find that science means physics.
    I call BS on this. If you want to talk about physics then just say so, but trying to pretend that Tom and Jane mean "physics" when they say "science" demeans them and makes you come across as a pseudo-intellectual bully (someone who wants to impose his understanding on others).

    Quote Originally Posted by coberst
    I suspect that the way to judge how well a domain of knowledge is like science is to discover if it does or does not have a paradigm.
    Kuhn's definition of paradigm is: the set of common beliefs and agreements shared between scientists about how problems should be understood and addressed.

    Since by definition a paradigm can be found only in science, it makes no sense to judge whether a domain be like science by considering whether it has a paradigm or not. A domain with a paradigm is not like science, but is science.

    Edited by mod (shanks) to clean up the code so [/b]bold[/b] shows as bold. Hope that's ok.
    Everything the laws of the universe do not prohibit must finally happen.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    924
    numbers

    Other sciences wish to emulate physics because physics has made great strides and has been very successful. The problem that most people fail to comprehend is that not all domains of knowledge can be tested with calipers and scales.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    The Edge
    Posts
    189
    Just to say:

    ...there's no point in quoting others in such an essay. Kuhn, "Marx said" "Rousseau showed", "as Darwin and Spence"...

    Anyone can quote anyone for any idea. Trying to lend rhetorical weight by such quotes just makes me sigh.

    Just say what you reckon, and why.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    924
    Quote Originally Posted by Vexer
    Just to say:

    ...there's no point in quoting others in such an essay. Kuhn, "Marx said" "Rousseau showed", "as Darwin and Spence"...

    Anyone can quote anyone for any idea. Trying to lend rhetorical weight by such quotes just makes me sigh.

    Just say what you reckon, and why.
    Another example of the failure of our educational system.

    I think that you fail to comprehend that the way to learn is to study the works of the best minds available. If we stand on the shoulders of giants we can quickly see far into the distance of human understanding. Opinions are a dime a dozen but good judgments are a rare commodity. The reason to use quotes is so that the individual you are communicating with can better ascertain the quality of any statement that is made.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7 Re: The Structure of Science? 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,176
    Quote Originally Posted by coberst
    The Structure of Science?

    The main philosophical problems of modern society are intimately associated with Tom and Jane’s enchantment with Science. Normal science is, for too many, an enchanted idol that is perceived as the savior of humanity. No matter what dastardly things humans may do, Science will save us.

    Science—normal science—as Thomas Kuhn labels it in “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions” moves forward in a “successive transition from one paradigm to another”. A paradigm defines the theory, rules and standards of practice. “In the absence of a paradigm or some candidate for paradigm, all of the facts that could possible pertain to the development of a given science are likely to seem equally relevant.”

    The Newtonian scientific paradigm was a mathematical, quantified, pattern capable of reducing reality to an atomic level. It’s ideal, if there was one, was man as a machine or more likely a cog in a machine. In such a science we lose the individual man and woman. Rousseau was offering something entirely different. It was holistic and non-reducible. It was a gestalt that included man as neutral manipulator of scientific experiments but also as a subject with values who was a totally thinking, feeling, free agent.

    “Rousseau showed that morality had to be instrumented, by man according to an ideal formulated by him; the science of man could only have meaning as an active ideal-type of science.” Newtonian paradigms left no room for such and ideal. It had no room for a holistic woman or man. The solution proposed by Rousseau was to make humanity first and science second; science was to be the servant of wo/man rather than wo/man as the servant of science.

    The paradigm of Newtonianism turned out to be a tougher nut than the Enlightenment could crack. Such individuals as Darwin and Spencer appeared on the scene and quickly humanity was sequestered again into the background by Science. Dewey’s long life time proved insufficient to the challenge and the reason why: “pragmatism contained no moral criteria by means of which a man-based value science could be instrumented.”

    Marx recognized the problem inherent in scientism and shifted ground from Rousseau’s ideal-type to the possible-type. Marx said that we should do what is possible and possible in our time. Marx advocated the victory of the laboring class.

    “What are the main problems of modern society; how can man’s situation in the world be improved?” Marx determined that the Newtonian paradigm was morally unedifying; the social problem was the alienation of man. But with Marx the ideal vision of the Enlightenment was swallowed up in the Revolution. The ideal of a full and free liberation of the human potential was destroyed in the Revolution.

    And therein lay the rub. What is a paradigm of normal science as Kuhn so succinctly wrote about and which, as a concept, was unrecognized in Kuhntonion form a century ago, but was nevertheless, even then, the heart of normal science.

    Kuhn says that practitioners of normal science have: a paradigm that makes a science normal when most if not all members agree upon a theory as being true. When this agreement breaks down then a new paradigm is agreed upon. The paradigm defines a map for action. The thing that separates a paradigm from some kind of, green light and red light group agreement about crossing the street is that there is more careful control, calculation, instrumentation, and a greater willingness to place before the world a conjecture to be evaluated as to its truth. A paradigm defines the theory, rules, and standards of practice.

    It seems that almost all domains of knowledge wish to emulate Science. Science for most people is technology and if questioned we would probably find that science means physics. We have placed Science on a very high pedestal because technology has been so successful. Every domain of knowledge wishes to be as good as Science.

    I suspect that the way to judge how well a domain of knowledge is like science is to discover if it does or does not have a paradigm. Like Kuhn notes in his book that without a paradigm any knowledge is as good as any other. Paradigm converts chaos into system.

    Many of the ideas and quotes in this OP are derived from Ernest Becker’s book “Beyond Alienation”. Me and Ernest agree that the “main philosophical problem for modern society” is that we need a paradigm for the “science of wo/man”. Have you a paradigm for this new science? Me and Ernest do but we disagree on some aspects.
    As soon as a system rejects knowledge it is no longer a system about knowledge. Even one tiny bit of knowledge, not wanted to be seen, or faced. And the system is finished in the field of knowledge and education.
    Everyday it will introduce new and wrong information as real information. To cloud its direction. There is no turning back from all the history I have seen.

    Socrates is the only philosopher that understood this. He is just now being given credit for Universal Science. Something that is now, more of a secret then what happened to Hiram Abiff.

    Benjamin Franklin awakened science, to a point of bringing into question science itself. Does science exist at all without total truth? Total disclosure for all?

    Benjamin Franklin stated clearly science does not exist at all, if it is not totally truthful and for all.

    We know that tribal medicine men often know things about, the human anatomy and the plants and animals and their poisons and chemicals. That we do not know. Yet what they know is not a science. Although it may rival some of our "science" at times.

    When a medicine man messes up, it is anything at all, except his fault or ignorance. It is the God's, the quality of the root. The timing of the treatment. Do not get me wrong these could actually be real excuses for all I know. However the way they are presented would make even the poorest detective suspect a cover up.

    What I am saying is if you are philosophically trying to revive multi subatomic particle science. You cannot. Truth would make that impossible. You will have to lie to hide its demise. Or get back to Socrates and start fresh.

    Modern multi subatomic particle science is creating a new lie a second. And they cannot stop or go back. They are so frivolous, if only to themselve. That there is no need to retrace every murderous step they have taken. Every polluted footprint that needs to be accounted for. Because they could never face it all, if only in their own mind.

    Benjamin Franklin had to take on the whole of the scientific community to prove his understanding of electricity was correct, and that lightning could be repelled or drawn just like any other form of electricity. They laughed in public at him, in numbers, for over thirty minutes. He showed them all up.

    What he showed and proved to them could have been confirmed in minutes by any decent craftsmen in England. The English just did not like the way the Americans were pulling away from them. The English would rather live or die as fools then allow others to lead them to knowledge. They could not relinquish their title as top scientists. Because they were not top scientists. It was a paradox.

    However today, the same evil seed that kept lightning rods and the understanding of electricity, from citizens. Has arisen again. And has reversed the work of Benjamin Franklin.
    When Benjamin Franklin's work becomes scarce, amongst a group, they ridicule him still. As if compelled by something unholy. By my actual experience. They would rather die of ignorance then face where Benjamin Franklin was over 250 years ago.

    If you are willing to face something it is actually kind of neat. Those that ridicule Benjamin Franklin seem to actually have a poor understanding of electricity. So they could not be combating Benjamin Franklin with science or knowledge. So why do they flare against his accuracy? If they do not have a solid footing in the field of electricity.

    Individuals with total understanding of electricity bow to old Benjamin Franklin even if they do not wish to stand in ridicule. They truly respect the work he did. That is the work that actually created the stuff we have today. More modern sorts have confused and complicated science and electricity, to sell passage through the toll both of confusion they have constructed.

    You might see that it is a philosophical problem not even a scientific problem, because they obviously cannot work out the problem with science. And so resort to anything but science.
    Does it mean that they know Benjamin Franklin was right? And they just want to live out some fantasy. Possibly while holding positions of responsibility, in science and education? Or are they just under some unholy influence?

    I come along and call them out. And they ask me to leave. They tell me there is no way, Benjamin Franklin did all the things I claim.
    I show them and they do not wish to see the truth. Which is totally a slap in the face.
    There is little proof left. So what I have may, also be gone soon. Is that what they wish? To lose history, and knowledge. Isn't that what a drug abuser does every time he gets high? He is just avoiding history, responsibility and duty. Committing a slow suicide. Not learning from his last bad trip.

    My question is not whether these people are scientists or not. Certainly they are not, in the sense of Socrates.

    My question is, are they beyond hope?



    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8 Re: The Structure of Science? 
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    924
    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick
    [

    My question is, are they beyond hope?



    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    I do not think that humans are beyond hope. It is possible for our species to survive another century or even more if we adults dvelop an intellectual life.

    Our technology has forced us to adapt quickly or perish. Darwin informs us that the species that is unable to adapt to its changing environment is doomed.

    Our environment is determined to a great extent by our technological sophistication. This technology moves at rocket speed and our intellectual sophistication barely moves forward at all. If we do not change this equation quickly we are toast and perhaps all life on this planet might share our end.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9 Re: The Structure of Science? 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,176
    Quote Originally Posted by coberst
    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick
    [

    My question is, are they beyond hope?



    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    I do not think that humans are beyond hope. It is possible for our species to survive another century or even more if we adults dvelop an intellectual life.

    Our technology has forced us to adapt quickly or perish. Darwin informs us that the species that is unable to adapt to its changing environment is doomed.

    Our environment is determined to a great extent by our technological sophistication. This technology moves at rocket speed and our intellectual sophistication barely moves forward at all. If we do not change this equation quickly we are toast and perhaps all life on this planet might share our end.
    I do not agree that technology grows like weeds. I believe weeds grow like weeds.

    I do not believe that excellent science just pops up through the cracks in the side walk, and they somehow symbolize or spread knowledge.

    I believe that knowledge is something that has to have a foundation prepared for it to grow.
    Like a field in farming has to be prepared, rested, and made fertile, naturally or with man made chemicals. The seeds must be placed with care. The seeds must be watered, kept in the sun. The weeds must be removed.
    The area that we grow the crop, must be kept in one place. Or the crop would spoil as we searched the cracks in the sidewalk for our crop. Only when all these things are in place do we get a good harvest.

    I may seem pessimistic, however I see no field for knowledge to grow. The Internet is more like a crack in the sidewalk. If you face what the Internet is, looking at the Internet from a distance, you realize that it is more a symbolic tool of creating a more knowledgeable world, rather then an actual tool to do so.

    I believe those that have decided knowledge for all, is not a real goal. Like the fact, that they have given us a place to grow weeds. And in all actuality, that will probably be the crop of the Internet. As much as I enjoy the Internet. And I do.

    We cannot grow knowledge from cracks in the sidewalk. The government controls the amplifiers for all the bully pulpits of the sciences. If you are in the field of science and say something that is not favorable to the governments goals, even by mistake. Perhaps taken by the moment of your discovery. You will find that you are not favorable.

    It is kind of sad. I have seen the tighter scientists who do not like me. Because I mock their field. Have a real find, if only to themselves.
    To them their find is the answer to failing science. Even though "science is not failing".
    As they introduce their find with great hopes. Feeling that now the problems with science are surly conquered, or can be conquered, with their find.
    They find that science cares little about solving the problems thought to be so real, or to be problems.

    Do not worry. There is another "scientist" just waiting to take his position. And he will not make that mistake.

    I was watching some footage from many years ago, over fifty years ago I believe. It was black and white footage, and the fellow cutting metal was using a carbide or vanadium tungsten steel blade, to cut the metal. At high rates of speed. Rates that we are only just matching today in some industries.

    It shows though that knowledge is only coming up through the cracks. The time, that saw technology, would have added something amazing to America, is past. Today that technology is still suffering from a lack of knowledge and understanding.

    We are becoming ignorant and tired, trying to make and get slaves to live our lives for us, basically do things for us.
    The only way to make slaves, is to cripple them, by making them stupid or limited in capability. And make them need you to live. By controlling provisions or territory by force. All some kind of sickness if you ask me.



    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    The Edge
    Posts
    189
    Apologies, “Coburst”, I am distracting you.


    I think that you fail to comprehend that the way to learn is to study the works of the best minds available

    Who says which are the best minds available. What’s wrong with yours?

    Sure, study what ‘they’ reckon. But don’t slavishly assume they’re right. Most of them are demonstrably wrong. Who’s to say they are the best minds available?

    Do not quote them as though what they reckon is valid. Just because they’re a famous name. That just makes me doubt the intellectual rigour of the argument.


    The reason to use quotes is so that the individual you are communicating with can better ascertain the quality of any statement that is made.

    I was saying that such quoting does nothing to indicate quality in any way. I can quote anyone, to support anything. It's a "wank", in fact.


    Sorry, I guess this should have been a thread of it’s own.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11 Re: The Structure of Science? 
    New Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    2
    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick

    I do not agree that technology grows like weeds. I believe weeds grow like weeds.

    I do not believe that excellent science just pops up through the cracks in the side walk, and they somehow symbolize or spread knowledge.

    I believe that knowledge is something that has to have a foundation prepared for it to grow.
    Like a field in farming has to be prepared, rested, and made fertile, naturally or with man made chemicals. The seeds must be placed with care. The seeds must be watered, kept in the sun. The weeds must be removed.
    I tend to agree with this concept. Not completely though. Continuing your metaphor William, the watering of this seed is very much a social process that is screened through several layers of society eventually leading to what we would understand as 'Scientific Knowledge'. I understand that some facts, ideas, and observations never leave the social ring of scientists, maybe the "science for sciences' sake". But others do leave this circle and end up being processed by a myriad of groups that make up the social fabric i.e. Governments, Commercial Industry, the Public, lobby groups, and the list goes on. The eventual form of these observations, ideas, concepts, and 'facts' will become 'Scientific knowledge' and 'Social knowledge' . Kuhn had some interesting ideas with his 'paradigm' (Kuhn is probably the most referenced name ever because of this concept), but I believe his concept of anomalies being the process by which the paradigm shifts to something completely different is somewhat lacking. The process is social, it dictates whether something is mainstream or 'fringe'.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12 Re: The Structure of Science? 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,176
    Quote Originally Posted by aletheum
    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick

    I do not agree that technology grows like weeds. I believe weeds grow like weeds.

    I do not believe that excellent science just pops up through the cracks in the side walk, and they somehow symbolize or spread knowledge.

    I believe that knowledge is something that has to have a foundation prepared for it to grow.
    Like a field in farming has to be prepared, rested, and made fertile, naturally or with man made chemicals. The seeds must be placed with care. The seeds must be watered, kept in the sun. The weeds must be removed.
    I tend to agree with this concept. Not completely though. Continuing your metaphor William, the watering of this seed is very much a social process that is screened through several layers of society eventually leading to what we would understand as 'Scientific Knowledge'. I understand that some facts, ideas, and observations never leave the social ring of scientists, maybe the "science for sciences' sake". But others do leave this circle and end up being processed by a myriad of groups that make up the social fabric i.e. Governments, Commercial Industry, the Public, lobby groups, and the list goes on. The eventual form of these observations, ideas, concepts, and 'facts' will become 'Scientific knowledge' and 'Social knowledge' . Kuhn had some interesting ideas with his 'paradigm' (Kuhn is probably the most referenced name ever because of this concept), but I believe his concept of anomalies being the process by which the paradigm shifts to something completely different is somewhat lacking. The process is social, it dictates whether something is mainstream or 'fringe'.
    I know this is hard to believe, but the real scientists have no status. They often work twelve hour days, improving their industry and the community, out of love of science. A fellow like this shares all he knows. Because he knows how hard it is to get it right.

    The "scientists" with Nobel prizes, write books filled with nonsense. Trying to act as if they give "boring" science its excitement. Meanwhile they try to steal the real excitement from science, for a thrill.

    Science is so exciting, that evil cannot tolerate science, in full forward motion. It is just to scary a ride for them.

    Evil understands suffering and misery. Quick schemes that will surely end in the demise of all.

    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    The Edge
    Posts
    189
    coberst


    Another example of the failure of our educational system.

    Well, naturally I take some small measure of offence at that.

    Ironically, I have a university degree, and two post-grad diplomas, in I.T. and Education.

    (We’ll have to assume I don’t lie)

    And their minds aren't really better than yours.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    924
    William

    I recently had occasion to hang out in the waiting area of St Joseph Hospital in Asheville for a few hours. I was free to walk many of the corridors and rest in many of the waiting areas along with everyone else. It was early morning but it was obvious that the hospital functioned fully 24/7.

    A person can walk the corridors of any big city hospital and observe the effectiveness of human rationality in action. One can also visit the UN building in NYC or read the morning papers and observe just how ineffective, frustrating and disappointing human rationality can be. Why does human reason perform so well in some matters and so poorly in others?

    We live in two very different worlds; a world of technical and technological order and clarity, and a world of personal and social disorder and confusion. We are increasingly able to solve problems in one domain and increasingly endangered by our inability to solve problems in the other.

    Normal science, as defined by Thomas Kuhn in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, is successful primarily because it is a domain of knowledge controlled by paradigms. The paradigm defines the standards, principles and methods of the discipline. It is not apparent to the laity but science moves forward in small incremental steps. Science seldom seeks and almost never produces major novelties.

    Science solves puzzles. The logic of the paradigm insulates the professional group from problems that are unsolvable by that paradigm. One reason that science progresses so rapidly and with such assurance is because the logic of that paradigm allows the practitioners to work on problems that only their lack of ingenuity will keep them from solving.

    Science uses instrumental rationality to solve puzzles. Instrumental rationality is a systematic process for reflecting upon the best action to take to reach an established end. The obvious question becomes ‘what mode of rationality is available for determining ends?’ Instrumental rationality appears to be of little use in determining such matters as “good” and “right”.

    There is a striking difference between the logic of technical problems and that of dialectical problems. The principles, methods and standards for dealing with technical problems and problems of “real life” are as different as night and day. Real life problems cannot be solved only using deductive and inductive reasoning.

    Dialectical reasoning methods require the ability to slip quickly between contradictory lines of reasoning. One needs skill to develop a synthesis of one point of view with another. Where technical matters are generally confined to only one well understood frame of reference real life problems become multi-dimensional totalities.

    When we think dialectically we are guided by principles not by procedures. Real life problems span multiple categories and academic disciplines. We need point-counter-point argumentation; we need emancipatory reasoning to resolve dialectical problems. We need Critical Thinking skills and attitudes to resolve real life problems.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    924
    Quote Originally Posted by Vexer
    Apologies, “Coburst”, I am distracting you.


    I think that you fail to comprehend that the way to learn is to study the works of the best minds available

    Who says which are the best minds available. What’s wrong with yours?

    Sure, study what ‘they’ reckon. But don’t slavishly assume they’re right. Most of them are demonstrably wrong. Who’s to say they are the best minds available?

    Do not quote them as though what they reckon is valid. Just because they’re a famous name. That just makes me doubt the intellectual rigour of the argument.


    The reason to use quotes is so that the individual you are communicating with can better ascertain the quality of any statement that is made.

    I was saying that such quoting does nothing to indicate quality in any way. I can quote anyone, to support anything. It's a "wank", in fact.


    Sorry, I guess this should have been a thread of it’s own.
    Comprehension is a hierarchy, resembling a pyramid, with awareness at the base followed by consciousness, succeeded by knowing, with understanding at the pinnacle.

    I have concocted a metaphor set that might relay my comprehension of the difference between knowing and understanding.

    Awareness--faces in a crowd.

    Consciousness—smile, a handshake, and curiosity.

    Knowledge—long talks sharing desires and ambitions.

    Understanding—a best friend bringing constant April.


    I am a retired engineer and my experience in the natural sciences leads me to conclude that these natural sciences are far more concerned with knowing than with understanding.

    Understanding is a long step beyond knowing and most often knowing provides the results that technology demands. Technology, I think, does not want understanding because understanding is inefficient and generally not required. The natural scientists, with their paradigms, are puzzle solvers. Puzzles require ingenuity but seldom understanding.

    I would say that understanding is the goal of intellection. To create meaningful knowledge one is advised to construct a sound foundation. The sound foundation for learning is derived from studying what the best minds in history can teach us.

    Good judgment is required for all aspects of life; it is especially useful in determining who the “best minds” are. CT (Critical Thinking) is the art and science of good judgment. It is advisable to study CT so that one can make better judgments in all aspects of life.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    The Edge
    Posts
    189
    coberst

    - Point in case, you already make far more sense than ten 'famous' thinkers I could name.


    Most famous thinks are pretty wrong. Evidence: they contradict each other.

    Conclusion: don't mention them.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    924
    Quote Originally Posted by Vexer
    coberst

    - Point in case, you already make far more sense than ten 'famous' thinkers I could name.


    Most famous thinks are pretty wrong. Evidence: they contradict each other.

    Conclusion: don't mention them.
    I appreciate those comments even though they seem a bit sophomoric.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Forum Ph.D. Darius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    817
    This is a disgrace to philosophy, to logic, and to humanity. Science is the paradigm of empiricism, and empirical evidence shows that humans are not the center of the universe. Nothing negative comes from this, and indeed in proving it only positive gains can be made, as now humans are more likely to consider other creatures and things ahead of themselves.

    What you are advocating is a step backward. All of those you quote, and what little you speak on the subject, are simply wrong. What we lack today is not focus on humanity, but actions to apply science to improve humanity. Science, by itself, is no savior, but the theories and evidence the scientific process brings allows us to objectively define ourselves and improve ourselves. Indeed, our true problem in the modern world is the lack of recognition for studies that should be changing society itself.
    Om mani padme hum

    "In dishonorable things we are not bound to obey any man." - The Book of the Courtier [1561], pg 99 (144 in pdf)
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •