Notices
Results 1 to 8 of 8

Thread: Does Natural Science Encourage a Narrow Mind?

  1. #1 Does Natural Science Encourage a Narrow Mind? 
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    924
    Does Natural Science Encourage a Narrow Mind?

    Paradigm directed science encourages the scientist to steadfastly adhere to carefully crafted narrow minded thinking. Because “normal science” has been so successful in achieving its narrow goals I claim that our whole society has become dangerously enchanted into viewing all domains of knowledge in restricted narrow constraints.

    Normal science is a puzzle-solving enterprise. Normal science is a slow accumulation of knowledge by a methodical step-by-step process undertaken by a group of scientists.

    ‘Paradigm’ is a word that was given great meaning and clarity by Thomas Kuhn in his book “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions”.

    “One of the things a scientific community acquires with a paradigm is a criterion for choosing problems that, while the paradigm is taken for granted, can be assumed to have solutions…A paradigm can, for that matter, even insulate the community from those socially important problems that are not reducible to the puzzle form, because they cannot be stated in terms of the conceptual and instrumental tools the paradigm supplies.”

    The author notes that all “real science is normally a habit-governed, puzzle-solving activity” and not a Critical Thinking activity. Paradigm and not hypothesis is the active meaning for the ‘new image of science’. Paradigm is neither a theory nor a metaphysical viewpoint.

    Kuhn’s new image of science—the paradigm—is an artifact, a way of seeing, and is a set of scientific problem solving habits. Normal science means research based upon one or more past achievements ‘that some particular community acknowledges for a time as supplying the foundation for its further practice…and these achievements are sufficiently unprecedented to attract an enduring group pf adherents away from competing modes of scientific activity’ furthermore they are sufficiently open-ended to leave all sorts of problems for the redefined group of practitioners to solve’. Such achievements Kuhn defines as paradigm.

    “A puzzle-solving paradigm, unlike a puzzle-solving hypothetico-deductive system, has also got to be a concrete ‘way of seeing’.”

    Kuhn constantly refers to the ‘gestalt switch’ when discussing the switch in reference from one paradigm to another as ‘re-seeing’ action. Each paradigm has been constructed to be a ‘way-of-seeing’. Here Kuhn is speaking not about what the paradigm is but how the paradigm is used. He is defining a paradigm as a newly developed puzzle-solving artifact that is used analogically to understand another artifact; for example, using wire and beads strung together to facilitate understanding the protein molecule.

    I think that we place “Science” (meaning normal science) on too high a pedestal and thereby distort our comprehension of political and social problems. We cannot solve social and political problems like we solve the questions formed by the normal sciences.

    Do you think that the techniques of normal science are directly applicable for solving the social and political problems of society?


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2 Re: Does Natural Science Encourage a Narrow Mind? 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    967
    Quote Originally Posted by coberst
    Does Natural Science Encourage a Narrow Mind?

    Do you think that the techniques of normal science are directly applicable for solving the social and political problems of society?[/b]
    1. Yes, it does. And unless the narrow path is exactly right, everyone becomes angry and aggressive.

    2. If the narrow path of science is exactly right, it is applicable for solving the social and political problems of society, unless we find an impossible problem to solve. Science says there are such.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    924
    Mod edit:

    As pointed out by other members of the forum, this is not only a copy of another post from this forum, but a copy of a post from other forums. This forum is not your personal soapbox, and you should not be replying to other members by pasting stock answers. This forum is for discussion, please respect that.

    JX
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Does having an agenda and sticking to it lead one to a narrowminded approach to the world? Apparently so.

    Coberst has been arguing across a dozen or more forums, for several years that a) the educational system of the US is geared to producing uncritical consumers.
    b) this can only be counteracted, and civilisation saved, if individuals engage in critical thinking.

    Unfortunately coberst's understanding of critical thinking is that it involves reading the works of 'great thinkers' and 'authorities', completely misunderstanding them, forcing that misunderstanding into his agenda, then preaching it across the internet with virtually no attempt to discuss.

    When he is challenged on a point of fact, or of interpretation, rather than defend his position he indulges in one of three actions:
    1. Accuse the challenger of heckling.
    2. Ignore the challenge.
    3. Respond with a copy and paste mini-essay that barely, if at all, has any relevance to the challenge.

    In this particular instance coberst's bizarre accusation is that the scientific method is flawed because it cannot solve the world's problems. Coberst, the scientific method is not designed to solve the world's problems. For the sake of sanity, yours and mine, please start to employ the critical thinking you believe to be so important to your own garbled, misplaced hypotheses.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    924
    Natural science has an intellectually narrowing effect upon the naive population. DickandJane comprehend the world via social osmosis and have been influenced into believing that the successes of the natural sciences must be emulated by all other domains of knowledge in order to achieve any success. We have created a cult of Science, which warps the ability of the naive to comprehend the world in which we live.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Time Lord Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    5,395
    Quote Originally Posted by coberst
    Natural science has an intellectually narrowing effect upon the naive population. DickandJane comprehend the world via social osmosis and have been influenced into believing that the successes of the natural sciences must be emulated by all other domains of knowledge in order to achieve any success. We have created a cult of Science, which warps the ability of the naive to comprehend the world in which we live.
    Bull, complete bull, and you are fully aware of it. There is no evidence of the claim at all. Rather it is another veiled attempt to bring out an opportunity to preach about "CT".

    To be honest it doesn't appear that you have any knowledge of how the scientific process works and so have set it up as a boogy man concept that can be used to expound on you personal agenda.

    By the way I am still waiting fo your reply to Lyns question asked a number of times. namely:

    "To continue the discussion you fled here, please cite a fact or statistic to justify your rampant stereotyping of American education. Even just one fact, please."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    967
    Quote Originally Posted by coberst
    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 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.
    basically you say that one adopts valid parts of a conversation and combine them with one's own. when one speak and act with an "acting dialect" we act by valid adopted directions and not free thinking (on work etc. but not true for inventors)

    point counter point argumentation is sorta like matrix handeling, one get a matrix of information and one needs to find all variables. However, in your words, that adds up to one has to add valid and subtract invalid information of the communicand. The last line would be that we need one heck of a big matrix of information and several point of views to solve a real life problem.

    So, basically that's all mathematics, however not clearly invented yet, we have the "removing invalid information out of a matrix" What you need then is experience; a valid base-matrix.

    Even though that is true, we still work with the same algebraic and mathematic rules. That's why I don't quite understand your argument. Perhaps you are sitting on a better method of solving the problems?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    924
    Math, the science of pattern, has little value when we seek to "reason together" when seeking common goals. If there exist no pattern or the pattern is too complex for us to discover math cannot help us and dialogical reasoning is our only recourse.
    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
  •