Philosophy of Science: Science is About Solving Puzzles and understanding stuff

[coberst]

Philosophy of Science: Science is About Solving Puzzles

I think that understanding the concept ‘paradigm’ and the nature of puzzle solving are two necessary conditions for understanding the concept ‘science’.

I suspect many fail to recognize that ‘science’ has the general meaning “a department of systematized knowledge as an object of knowledge”. ‘Science’ is generally a word used to denote the natural sciences or more likely technology in general.

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.”

Practitioners of normal science are expert puzzle-solvers. “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…One of the reasons why normal science seems to progress so rapidly is that its practitioners concentrate on problems that only their own lack of ingenuity should keep them from solving.”

Practitioners of normal science have:
1) A paradigm that defines the theory, rules and standards of practice.
2) Expertise as puzzle-solvers. Puzzles are assumed to have solutions.
3) A criterion for choosing problems for solution.
4) Concrete problems for solution i.e. problems with solutions and only lack of ingenuity causes failure.

I suspect that it is a common mistake to think that natural sciences are so successful because of the creative faculties of the scientist rather than their ingenuity at puzzle solving. Kuhn and I think the success rests on the puzzle solving skills of the practitioners.

Ingenious—marked by especial aptitude at discovering, inventing, or contriving; marked by originality, resourcefulness, and cleverness in conception or execution

Creative—bring into existence, to invest with a new form, office, or rank; to produce through imaginative skill; to make or bring into existence something new.

[Weird Dave]

There are many instances of scientists coming up with solutions before problems (this is often how the invention of the laser is described). I've just read a paper where Frank Wilczek "invents" particles called anyons that can have any spin (instead of the usual integer or half-integer spind of bosons and fermions). Much later on it was realised that these particles might be useful in explaining the fractional quantum hall effect, or for quantum computing. I suspect there's a vast amount of science, especially maths and theoretical physics, that follows dead ends - solutions for which no problem will ever be found. Blue-sky creativity is just as important as problem solving.

[coberst]

There are many instances of scientists coming up with solutions before problems (this is often how the invention of the laser is described). I've just read a paper where Frank Wilczek "invents" particles called anyons that can have any spin (instead of the usual integer or half-integer spind of bosons and fermions). Much later on it was realised that these particles might be useful in explaining the fractional quantum hall effect, or for quantum computing. I suspect there's a vast amount of science, especially maths and theoretical physics, that follows dead ends - solutions for which no problem will ever be found. Blue-sky creativity is just as important as problem solving.

Kuhn draws a significant difference between problem solving and puzzle solving.

[Eta C]

No successful scientist is a mere puzzle solver. They are also creative. Unfortunately, all most people experience from science is doing homework in classes (or on their own). This gives the impression that all a research scientist does is solve problems. Nothing is further from the truth. When performing research there is no a priori "right" answer to be found. One must justify why one's answer is correct.

Yes one may be "solving a puzzle," but there's no picture on the front of the box, no hints section or solutions in the back of the book. If you're not creative, you're not going to succeed. A successful scientist has the imagination to envision what might be an explanation of the puzzle nature has presented them with.

As to Kuhn, while he has some good concepts, he tends to overstate the idea of paridigm shifts (-10 points) and many readers of Kuhn overstate his overstatements.

For examples of creativity as applied to science one need only read one of the bios of Feynman (Gleik's is good) or something by Murray Gell-Mann (The Quark and the Jaguar comes to mind).

[Sp1ke]

Spot on, Eta. It sometimes seems in hindsight that advances in science are just a case of solving complicated puzzles but the reality needs more lateral thinking. There will be a wealth of both brilliant and stupid hypotheses, most of which are thrown away. All it takes is just one idea that solves the puzzle. If the idea works, it looks like it's derived from the puzzles and everyone then says "Oh, that's obvious". But the brilliance is in finding the solution in the first place when no-one else can.

Of course then there's often years of effort to prove the new idea works and is an improvement over the previous model. That's the 99% perspiration, following the 1% inspiration.

[coberst]

Kuhn makes it clear that there is a significant difference between problems and puzzles. A problem has no certain solution whereas a puzzle has a known solution.

The paradigm limits the work of the scientific group to those matters that fit the paradigm. The paradigm assures that a solution exists. It is up to the ingenuity of the scientist to find that solution.

[Argos]

Kuhn makes it clear that there is a significant difference between problems and puzzles. A problem has no certain solution whereas a puzzle has a known solution.

It follows that most of the scientific questions fall in the category of problems, not puzzles.

[Swift]

Kuhn makes it clear that there is a significant difference between problems and puzzles. A problem has no certain solution whereas a puzzle has a known solution.

The paradigm limits the work of the scientific group to those matters that fit the paradigm. The paradigm assures that a solution exists. It is up to the ingenuity of the scientist to find that solution.
I don't have the impression in science that there is a strong paradigm that solutions exist. As an industrial scientist, I've certainly had that argument with Marketing many times - just because you want something, doesn't make it possible (particularly in the time you want it ;) ). Sure, there are "problems" that from similar work or past experience you can be pretty comfortable in assuming there is a solution, but there are many that you can't assume that. One of my favorite quotes is "if we knew what we were doing, it wouldn't be called research".

I understand the concept of paradigms, and I have even referred to them. But I don't think they are universally applicable (would that be a paradigm of paradigms :think: ).

Along those lines, I just learned of a forum for unpublished and unreproducible results in chemistry (link (http://www.chemunpub.it/)). An interesting idea, but I don't see how it fits the "there is always a solution" paradigm.

[Eta C]

Kuhn makes it clear that there is a significant difference between problems and puzzles. A problem has no certain solution whereas a puzzle has a known solution.

The paradigm limits the work of the scientific group to those matters that fit the paradigm. The paradigm assures that a solution exists. It is up to the ingenuity of the scientist to find that solution.

What does that last sentence mean? What paradigm? The paradigm that science works at all? If you are asserting that scientists only do work that fits into the currently accepted standard model I can assure you that you are wrong. Wrong in more ways than you can count. Really wrong. Not even wrong. You can look in any scientific journal and find experiments probing the limits of current theories, theorists proposing new hypotheses, all of them looking for phenomena that current theories cannot explain.

You keep quoting Kuhn that there is a difference between solving puzzles and solving problems. Despite your assertion, my experience, the experience of other scientists who post here, and my knowledge of the history of science, tell me that in this light, scientists are problem solvers.

[Nereid]

Kuhn's ideas, while interesting and oft the spark for some sometimes heated discussions, rather fail a simple scientific test - they do not match good observations of the phenomena they purport to explain (or at least describe).

The problem/puzzle dichotomy is one example of the failure of Kuhn's idea - at the naive level it fails because he (or anyone else) cannot provide good criteria for deciding whether any particular piece of work, done by scientists, is problem solving or puzzle solving.

Recursion (retreat?) to 'paradigm', as the arbiter, only makes things worse.

We would then have to ask 'how do you tell when a new paradigm is in play?'

The answer, of course, is that you can't.

For example, how many paradigms (or, if you prefer, paradigm shifts) were involved in the long history of work on the Moon's origin? The current best theories involve pieces ('paradigms'?) from maths, geology, chemistry, astronomy, physics, computing, and probably more; several 'breakthroughs' (Kuhn's shiboleth for paradigms?) happened when old thinking in one field was applied to the puzzle/problem; others simply when access to work published in Russian become available in English. And so on.

Another example: is there a hierarchy of paradigms? With Relativity and quantum theory as the markers of über-paradigms, Bell's Inequality and the BCS theory of superconductivity as paradigms, and (the discovery of) Neptune and dark energy as a mini-paradigm? Or was there only one paradigm shift, that which occurred around the time of Newton and Galileo (no problems have been worked on ever since)?

[TheBlackCat]

Scientists must be creative. The creative comes not in carrying out the experiments, that is the simple (albiet time consuming) part. The creativity comes in two other areas.

One, it comes in figuring out which problems need to be solved. In most areas of science, there are clear-cut questions that must be answered. However, in most areas of science there are also not so clear answers, either because we had not recognized the problem or because we think we already know the answer. Both happen routinely in my field, neuroscience, so called "paradigms" often have a lifespan of just a few years, and overturning supposedly central "paradigms" is a very routine occurence. Paradigms may go longer without being overturned in many other fields, but few other fields are progressing as quickly as biological/physiological/biomolecular ones right now so naturally their "paradigms" cannot be overturned as quickly.

However, whether the question you must answer is obvious or not, there is one thing all scientists must "create", and that is the experiment. The experimental protocol, as it is called in my field at least, is something you must create on your own. In fact, if you don't you will not get funding for it. It is often not obvious the best way to carry out and experiment, there are often many different routes one could take and the best one is often not at all obvious. At least in my field we have to design, build, and program equipment in the simplest, most economical, and fastest manner possible while still preserving safety and reliability. This is not a trivial task, especially when trying to get a number of very sophisticated electronic devices to cooperate, and in many cases "tricking" them into doing things they are not meant to do. What is more, especially when dealing with human subjects but also even the simplest animal it is important to prevent inadvertent tip-offs, so great care must be taken (like in all sciences) to fix as many variables as you can.

The very nature of looking at an issue in a way no one has before is really "creativity", since you are "creating" a new perspective. This is strongly encouraged and strongly rewarded in science, at least that has been my experience.

So science is definitely creative, and science strongly rewards creativity.

[Weird Dave]

Kuhn makes it clear that there is a significant difference between problems and puzzles. A problem has no certain solution whereas a puzzle has a known solution.

The paradigm limits the work of the scientific group to those matters that fit the paradigm. The paradigm assures that a solution exists. It is up to the ingenuity of the scientist to find that solution.
????????????????
I'm going to be Eta C's echo here. NOTHING assures any scientist that a solution to their problem exists (with the possible exception of a mathematician trying to simplify a pre-existing proof). As a simple example, consider an astronomer trying to understand the precession of Mercury's orbit. He might spend his entire life observing and calculating, trying to find the extra planets that might cause such an orbit. But no such solution exists in his paradigm. Only with recourse to General Relativity can Mercury's orbit be accurately modelled. So there is at least one problem that fits into the paradigm of Newtonian physics, and does not have a solution in that paradigm.

[Weird Dave]

Of course, most scientific issues alternate problem solving and creativity - that much should be obvious at a moment's thought.

Creativity - a question occurs to a scientist
Problem solving - scientist tries the standard techniques to try to solve the problem
Creativity - if standard approaches do not work, the scientist may have an idea for a new technique
Problem solving - scientist develops his technique
Creativity - the scientist may suddenly realise that his new technique is ideal for that problem his colleague was stuck on last year
And so on

Each problem-solving step also breaks down into creative/problem solving steps, in a fractal matter, until you reach entirely non-creative tasks such as aligning lasers, pages of tedious algebra, debugging programs, filing bits of metal in the workshop, etc. But most problems (or puzzles) can only be solved with creativity. Occasionally they can be solved by mechanically following standard algorithms, but not many real-world problems are of that kind. And everything TheBlackCat said is right.

[HenrikOlsen]

Of course then there's often years of effort to prove the new idea works and is an improvement over the previous model. That's the 99% perspiration, following the 1% inspiration.
That was Edison. He was an engineer not a scientist and wasn't talking about proving ideas but about making and selling products based on them.

[Nicolas]

a department of systematized knowledge as an object of knowledge

I'm stuck in a circle here. Can anyone get me out of this definition of "science"?

In Dutch, the word "science" is its definition: "wetenschap" what means about as much as "what has to do with knowledge".

[Gillianren]

I'm curious, Coberst. Why, exactly, do you think no one ever seems to agree with you on these things? I mean, I can tell you why I don't agree with you--I have!--but why do you think we don't? What's more, given that we never do, why do you continue to lecture us?

[coberst]

I'm curious, Coberst. Why, exactly, do you think no one ever seems to agree with you on these things? I mean, I can tell you why I don't agree with you--I have!--but why do you think we don't? What's more, given that we never do, why do you continue to lecture us?

I almost always post a topic that I have spent a good bit of time studying and that I think few others have studied.

I think that we can properly think of comprehension as being like a pyramid. At the base of the pyramid is awareness followed by consciousness then knowledge and at the pinnacle is understanding. A person must pass through the lower stages to reach understanding, which is a far step beyond knowing.

I choose a topic based upon an assumption that most readers have not studied it. Because I consider it important I try to make the reader conscious of the matter. I am trying to make a person conscious of a matter that they will later study and thus gain knowledge of the matter.

Why do most, almost all in fact, disagree with me? I am not a psychologist and so my assumption is not very useful but I will tell you what I think.

People seem to follow patterns and one pattern is that everyone has an opinion and since they have often not studied this matter their opinion is not a considered opinion. If a person wants to express an opinion and knows little about a particular matter they will take a negative position. Others who follow and see no one supporting my position will in the standard herd instinct go with the negative.

Of course anyone reading this conclusion will inform me that everyone is negative because I am wrong. All of this follows a pattern. I have been doing this for a long time because I think that occasionally some people will pick up a book and try to understand the matter because they are now conscious of it and thus they will become knowledgably of a matter that is important.

[coberst]

I have included in my post the dictionary definition of the two words

Ingenious—marked by especial aptitude at discovering, inventing, or contriving; marked by originality, resourcefulness, and cleverness in conception or execution

Creative—bring into existence, to invest with a new form, office, or rank; to produce through imaginative skill; to make or bring into existence something new.

We can see that ingenious, the word Kuhn uses to describe the expert puzzle solver, is so similiar to creative that we could exchange definitions easily.

I think that people get too warped out of shape by the word puzzle. Even though most of normal science is puzzle solving it is very ingenious. Perhaps street smart might be a good way of describibng it.

[Halcyon Dayz]

With puzzles you at least know what the pieces are.
No such guarantee in science.

[TheBlackCat]

I choose a topic based upon an assumption that most readers have not studied it. Because I consider it important I try to make the reader conscious of the matter. I am trying to make a person conscious of a matter that they will later study and thus gain knowledge of the matter.
This is a huge assumption. What gives you the idea most people on this board are not already aware of the things you are discussing? It seems from the replies a great many peoplare are extremely aware, apparently more than you are since you seem to have pretty much lifted your ideas straight out of Kuhn.

People seem to follow patterns and one pattern is that everyone has an opinion and since they have often not studied this matter their opinion is not a considered opinion.
You are assuming people have not studied the matter. A great many people here have.

If a person wants to express an opinion and knows little about a particular matter they will take a negative position. Others who follow and see no one supporting my position will in the standard herd instinct go with the negative.
I am sorry, but this is absolutely absurd. It flies directly in the face of everything we know about human behavior. When people do not know about the facts of the matter they do not reject it automatically. A great many people will accept what they are told if they don't know much about it, a great many others will accept the opinion that fits with their preconceptions. Your claim that they will automatically reject it is completely and utterly wrong, whole industries are based on people accepting things that are not true because they don't know any better. If your opinion was correct such fields would not exist. That only applies to people who are not knowledgable, people who are knowledgeable have actual facts to base a conclusion on.

An opinion built from facts is not an opinion at all, it is a conclusion. Opinions are entirely subjective, conclusions are not. You are stating opinions based, apparently, on no real experience or direct knowledge of what you are talking about. Many people here who oppose you are drawing conclusions based on direct knowledge and/or personal experience. Conclusions backed by solid facts always trump opinions based on nothing but perhaps a little hearsay.

You are implying anybody who rejects your opinion is automatically uneducated on the matter, and that you alone truly understand it. You don't seem to accept the possibility that the people here disagree with you because they know far more about it then you do, often because they work in science themselves, and that you are in fact the one who is uneducated (seemingly basing your entire opinion on one book).

Of course anyone reading this conclusion will inform me that everyone is negative because I am wrong.
What makes you so sure you aren't?

I have been doing this for a long time because I think that occasionally some people will pick up a book and try to understand the matter because they are now conscious of it and thus they will become knowledgably of a matter that is important.
This is your problem right here. No one can really get educated on such a major issue by just reading one book (especially the one you keep pushing). They have to read a great many books, and talk to people who actually do the work themselves to find out how thing operate in the real world. Alternatively they can become scientists themselves and see how things really operate from the inside.

[Nicolas]

Meanwhile, can anyone help me with the definition of science put forward here? I'm rather stuck with the word "knowledge" being twice in such a short definition, resulting in me having not clue what they're trying to say with that definition. "(A) science is a systematized part of all available knowledge"?

[TheBlackCat]

Science is the century-old endeavor to bring together by means of systematic thought the perceptible phenomena of this world into as thorough-going an association as possible. To put it boldly, it is the attempt at a posterior reconstruction of existence by the process of conceptualization.
-Albert Einstein


Oh, yeah. The definition of creative from my dictionary:

cre·a·tive [kree áytiv]
adj
1. able to create: able to create things
2. new and original: using or showing use of the imagination to create new ideas or things
a creative approach to the problem of space

3. resourceful: making imaginative use of the limited resources available

Microsoft® Encarta® Reference Library 2004. © 1993-2003 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.


Please tell me how science does not fit this definition. It is definitely creating new ideas, new things must be created in order to test those new ideas, and considering the funding cuts all scientists must be resourceful nowadays.

[Cougar]

Wow, what an opening paragraph. I commend Coberst for putting a well expressed discussion into play. I was going to respond immediately, before reading the responses. But now I see many who have expressed points I would have. Anyway....

At one point in my life, I wondered who this Kuhn character was and read the book he's "known" for. Perhaps not all the time, but much of the time I was rather querulous or disagreeing with the generalizations Kuhn was laying out. Then I read Steve Fuller's book on Kuhn and gained a broader perspective. With that experience and perspective, I am decidedly anti-Kuhnian. But I'm not anti-Coberst, who just seems to be putting out "what Kuhn would say," apparently knowledgeably. What else did Coberst say? Or was it Kuhn?....

I suspect many fail to recognize that ‘science’ has the general meaning “a department of systematized knowledge as an object of knowledge”.
This is a pretty open-ended claim, even after we determine whether the quoted definition is accurate or not, exactly what it means, etc. (I kind of liked it the first time I read it. The first problem I had with it was the word "department." Science is a department?? It seemed... confining, almost belittling. :) )

The largest open end is the statement "many fail to recognize." If you're talking about the general population of the United States, you could follow that with almost anything and be right. But adding "what science is" would certainly, and regrettably, yield a factual statement with that population.

As to the definition, "systematized knowledge as an object of knowledge," Well....

This certainly fits a "science historian." It also seems to fit our schooling, especially if you say "object of learning." But for most "scientists," this is again too confining. The "object of knowledge" (or even investigation) is not limited to any "systematized knowledge," by which I assume you mean "everything known." Scientists push for what is unknown.

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.
The only thing right about this Kuhnism is the sound and the vague meaning of the word "paradigm," which apparently had some sort of mass appeal. Most everything else in this view is false, as is much of the rest of Structure.

2) Expertise as puzzle-solvers. Puzzles are assumed to have solutions.
Much of Kuhn is pretty contentious. Puzzle solvers? Too compartmentalized. Can't put science or scientists in a box like that. On the other hand, "pattern recognition" might be a good tool to have in one's toolbox. But that's not necessarily the only tool in the box.

I suspect that it is a common mistake to think that natural sciences are so successful because of the creative faculties of the scientist rather than their ingenuity at puzzle solving. Kuhn and I think the success rests on the puzzle solving skills of the practitioners.
Ooh, an expressed opinion. The question of creativity in science (the 'how' of it, not the existence of it) is one of long-standing. Many of the greats have addressed it. Einstein, Gell-Mann, can't remember all the others. I think what Einstein said about creativity was closer to his personal view than a general statement. Gell-Mann was a little more circumspect. The 'key' to scientific creativity is too large and complex and unknown to be so pinpointing.

[Fram]

I have included in my post the dictionary definition of the two words
[SKIP]
We can see that ingenious, the word Kuhn uses to describe the expert puzzle solver, is so similiar to creative that we could exchange definitions easily.


But in your OP, you said
I suspect that it is a common mistake to think that natural sciences are so successful because of the creative faculties of the scientist rather than their ingenuity at puzzle solving.
Now, replace "creative faculties" by "ingenuity" (after all, they are interchangeable, right?), and there isn't much left of your "common mistake".

And I echo Nicolas' question for an explanation of your definition of science as
a department of systematized knowledge as an object of knowledge.

Finally, you said
‘Science’ is generally a word used to denote the natural sciences or more likely technology in general.

Wrong. Science is the study of nature in all its aspects. Technology is the application of science.

[Nicolas]

Science is the century-old endeavor to bring together by means of systematic thought the perceptible phenomena of this world into as thorough-going an association as possible. To put it boldly, it is the attempt at a posterior reconstruction of existence by the process of conceptualization.
-Albert Einstein

This is not the easiest text in English language, but I understood it after one careful reading. And I feel it says the same as that knowledge/knowledge definition, only in a language people like me do understand :). Maybe because it aims at being direct, complete and clear rather than a mere result of long reasoning (in fact only a pointer to this reasoning), making the definition meaningless to those who did not have access to this reasoning.

[HenrikOlsen]

Nonono, science is about humanity's hatret of mice (http://www.theonion.com/content/node/30800).
Well, it makes about as much sense as a lot of other talk here:)

[Nereid]

To what extent are you including Kuhn, and his paradigmatic framework, in your proposals and commentary, as merely a device to get discussion going?

Or are you, perhaps, trying to build on Kuhn's work, extending, modifying, and testing it?

I'm wondering partly because the Kuhnian references seem to be getting in the way of what seems (to me) to be the main thrust of your proposal. But I may have it completely backwards.

[Swift]

<snip>
Originally Posted by coberst
2) Expertise as puzzle-solvers. Puzzles are assumed to have solutions.
Much of Kuhn is pretty contentious. Puzzle solvers? Too compartmentalized. Can't put science or scientists in a box like that. On the other hand, "pattern recognition" might be a good tool to have in one's toolbox. But that's not necessarily the only tool in the box.

I like the toolbox analogy of at least how I 'do' science. I would even concede that puzzle-solving, putting all the pieces together into a coherent picture, is one of the tools. Pattern recognition is another, probably related, sort of getting the picture before you have all the pieces. The Edison approach of systematic testing or exploration is another.

[coberst]

Blackcat

I know very little about neuroscience but I wonder about one thing. Kuhn speaks of times within a science when there is more than one paradigm. Is it possible that such is the situation within neuroscience?

I am a big fan of “Philosophy in the Flesh” and I get the impression that neuroscience is so new and dynamic that it has multiple paradigms, that the science is fragmented with differing paradigms within the whole.

Kuhn uses the expression ‘ingenuity’ to capture that which is required to do all the things you mention about formulating the hypothesis and the experiment itself. That requires a different kind of magic than does an Einstein type creation.

If we look at the definition of ingenuity and creativity the two are very similar. One would have to say, I think, that they are not the same kind of talent but who is to give a higher value to one or the other. I think that the common impression of society is that creativity is a greater talent only because they do not understand what science is about. It is this ignorance of science that I seek to minimize.

[coberst]

Margaret Masterman has written the essay “The Nature of a Paradigm” for inclusion in the book “Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge”.

Her conclusions are: “as historians, however much we may cavil at Kuhn’s conclusions in detail, we are not going to be able to go back to where we were before Kuhn and his immediate predecessors began to get at us”.

The history of science, by its nature as part of the history of ideas, has got to be a discipline which helps actual scientists to get a deeper insight into the real nature of their science…So, if we retreat from all consideration of Kuhn’s ‘new image’ of science, we run the risk of totally disconnecting the new- style realistic history of science from its old-style philosophy: a disaster.”

Like many words ‘science’ has more than one meaning and this can be misleading. We commonly use the word to mean—systemized study of technology and its associated phenomena. The word has a more general meaning—systematized study of any domain of knowledge. I think that this distinction needs to be kept in mind.

The author notes that all “real science is normally a habit-governed, puzzle-solving activity” and not a philosophical 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 human achievement), 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.

To understand Kuhn I must understand what is “an organized puzzle-solving gestalt, which is itself a ‘picture’ of something, A, if it is then to be applied, non-obviously, to provide a new way of seeing something else, B.”

[Sp1ke]

My dictionary defines "paradigm" as "An example to be copied". I think there's a bit more to scientific research, and neuroscience, than just copying existing examples.

[coberst]

To what extent are you including Kuhn, and his paradigmatic framework, in your proposals and commentary, as merely a device to get discussion going?

Or are you, perhaps, trying to build on Kuhn's work, extending, modifying, and testing it?

I'm wondering partly because the Kuhnian references seem to be getting in the way of what seems (to me) to be the main thrust of your proposal. But I may have it completely backwards.

I am a retired engineer and an avid fan of self-actualizing learning. I think that many things cannot be taught in a pupil/teacher environment. I am what I call myself a septemberscholar. If you are interested www.septemberscholar.com.

Kuhn was one of the many thiongs I have studied. I think that what Kuhn says is vitally important for the 'man on the street to comprehend'. I try to post topics that are important and which I have spent effort studying.

I find that Kuhn is in sync with my experience. My worldview resonates with Kuhn's "theory" of paradigm.

[Swift]

I find that Kuhn is in sync with my experience. My worldview resonates with Kuhn's "theory" of paradigm.
Well, I'm a working chemist, and it does not resonate with my worldview, or apparently many other scientists here.

[coberst]

My dictionary defines science in several ways one of those ways is “-- "a department of systematized knowledge as an object of knowledge".

We might say that the philosophy department is a department of systematized knowledge but that department is also an object of study; only with the addition of the last phrase does the department then become a science. I understand your puzzlement and I guess my example is not very good.

Some people have mentioned that wearing colored glasses as being a good metaphor for paradigm. I am inclined to say that these gestalt images wherein your perception of the image changes like a switch is what I think of when imagining what a paradigm is. I consider it to be similar to that moment of understanding, that tipping point, that instant when water becomes ice.

My object for defining science in this way is because many people take science to mean technology. I wish to emphasize that such things as fly fishing can be a science. Any domain of knowledge can be a science.

[Swift]

Some people have mentioned that wearing colored glasses as being a good metaphor for paradigm. I am inclined to say that these gestalt images wherein your perception of the image changes like a switch is what I think of when imagining what a paradigm is. I consider it to be similar to that moment of understanding, that tipping point, that instant when water becomes ice.

If I understand what you are saying (and I don't think I do), the closest I can come to is the kind of stuff James Burke talked about in "The Day the Universe Changed" (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0316117048/sr=8-1/qid=1149778297/ref=pd_bbs_1/104-4948995-0898348?%5Fencoding=UTF8). I think these paradigm shifts are very important, but you seem to be saying they are everything, that science is completely locked into the current paradigm and that there is one paradigm for all of science, and I don't think either of these things are true.

I wish to emphasize that such things as fly fishing can be a science. Any domain of knowledge can be a science.
I absolutely disagree with that. There is something different about science, though I'm not sure I can immediately list all that is different. One part is that flying fishing is a static domain of knowledge (as far as I know) - there are no new breakthroughs in the knowledge of fly fishing. This is absolutely not true for science.

[Fram]

Fly fishing is not a science, its an occupation (a hobby, a means to get food, ...). The study of fly fishing (how does it work, what is the best way to do it) is a science. The implementation of that science (making better rods (do fly fishers use rods?), make better bait, search for the best water depth, ...) is technology. Fly fishing, no matter if you do it the scientific way or any other way, no matter if you use the technology or not, is the act of doing it.

[Celestial Mechanic]

[Snip!]My object for defining science in this way is because many people take science to mean technology. I wish to emphasize that such things as fly fishing can be a science. Any domain of knowledge can be a science.
I wonder if universities will offer PhDs in fly fishing someday? :whistle:

[HenrikOlsen]

I'm pretty sure some have already.

[Swift]

I wonder if universities will offer PhDs in fly fishing someday? :whistle:
There are entire Universities (http://www.frontrangeanglers.com/flytyingcoursedescriptions.htm) devoted to fly fishing. :D

[TheBlackCat]

I know very little about neuroscience but I wonder about one thing. Kuhn speaks of times within a science when there is more than one paradigm. Is it possible that such is the situation within neuroscience?
No, absolutely not. At least not in the cases I am talking about. These are things that everyone took for granted, but were then found to be wrong and accepted as such over a period of just realtively few years.

I am a big fan of “Philosophy in the Flesh” and I get the impression that neuroscience is so new and dynamic that it has multiple paradigms, that the science is fragmented with differing paradigms within the whole.
If there are multiple, mutually exclusive paradigms on the same topic then they are not paradigms. "Multiple paradigms", assuming they are on the same issue and mutually exclusive, is an oxymoron. But that is not an issue here, there were no multiple paradigms. The universally excepted "paradigm" was wrong, and accepted as such, rather quickly.

This is not only in neuroscience, it is extremely common in physiology and molecular-oriented biological fields in general. I simply cite neuroscience because it is my personal area of expertise. But I am well aware of it happening in molecular biology and other, macroscopic areas as well. None were cases of "multiple paradigms", they were cases of people having the wrong idea, that being demonstrated, and everyone accepting it in a relatively short period of time.

Kuhn uses the expression ‘ingenuity’ to capture that which is required to do all the things you mention about formulating the hypothesis and the experiment itself. That requires a different kind of magic than does an Einstein type creation.
Kuhn does not have the authority to force us to use his own, completely arbitrary, made-up definitions of words. We are using the English definitions of English words here, not Kuhn's. Please tell me how the real definition of creativity does not apply to science. Whether Kuhn's made-up definition applies or not is utterly irrelevant.

If we look at the definition of ingenuity and creativity the two are very similar. One would have to say, I think, that they are not the same kind of talent but who is to give a higher value to one or the other. I think that the common impression of society is that creativity is a greater talent only because they do not understand what science is about.
You are still asserting scientists are not creative. Please tell my how science does not meet the real, English definition of creative.

It is this ignorance of science that I seek to minimize.
What makes you so sure you know enough about science to make anyone less ignorant of it? And what makes you think your approach of relentlessly quoting Kuhn will accomplish your goal?

[coberst]

Swift

Kuhn often refers to paradigm as “a way of seeing”. When I try to understand something I start by creating a ‘model’ that represents my present comprehension of a domain of knowledge. As I study the matter sometimes I receive that moment of completion, the eureka moment, when my ‘model’ is correct.

You might compare that to the two guys who finally developed the helix model for DNA. They finally found an image that fit the data and that moment a new paradigm was born.

[coberst]

Blackcat

Kuhn refers to a science having a set of paradigms. I think cognitive science has two paradigms or maybe two contenders for paradigm. You might want to take up your argument with Kuhn regarding this matter.

My, we are getting into a huff here. Black cat might be an appropriate handle.

Do not take this so personal. I read a lot about these matters and I am a retired engineer, which may or may not qualify me as a scientist. All that I read indicates that Kuhn is a much respected scientist, historian and I think teacher.

Do not take your knife to me please. If you wish to argue with Kuhn, be my guest.

[TheBlackCat]

Kuhn often refers to paradigm as “a way of seeing”. When I try to understand something I start by creating a ‘model’ that represents my present comprehension of a domain of knowledge. As I study the matter sometimes I receive that moment of completion, the eureka moment, when my ‘model’ is correct.
That is not possible. Models are never considered "correct", they are always tentative. They are never considered complete. The fact that you would claim that sort of certainty show you do not truly understand how science operates.

You might compare that to the two guys who finally developed the helix model for DNA. They finally found an image that fit the data and that moment a new paradigm was born.
You obviously don't actually know what Watson and Crick did. Watson and Crick's double helix model was a guess. An extremely rough guess based on very poor data. It fit the data, but so did a bunch of other, competing hypotheses concerning DNA structure. Watson and Crick's model had the advantage that it was simple and that it gave an obvious manner by which DNA could be replicated. But it was still nothing more than a very rough educated guess until better analyses were done.

In fact, the Watson and Crick model (technically called B-DNA) is not actually the form of DNA. There are actually at least 4 double-stranded DNA structures, A, B, B', and Z, the first three of which exist in the body at one point are another. Z-DNA may as well, but that hasn't actually been demonstrated yet. There are als small structures called hairpins that form from paleondrome sequences, but that is another issue entirely. Interestingly, the existance of A-DNA was demonstrated before the existance of Watson and Crick's B-DNA. The short DNA strands they synthesized used a repeating pattern that formed A-DNA, so when they got better measurments they found Whaton and Crick's model did not work. It wasn't until they tried a longer, more random sequences that they were able to directly observe B-DNA. Most coding DNA is in B form, but the other forms play very important biological roles.

[TheBlackCat]

Kuhn refers to a science having a set of paradigms. I think cognitive science has two paradigms or maybe two contenders for paradigm. You might want to take up your argument with Kuhn regarding this matter.
What makes you think there are multiple paradigms? Do you even know what examples I am talking about? Making broad, sweeping assertions regarding the nature of issues when you do not even know what issues are being discussed seems a little presumptuous to me. There is no way you could possibly determine there are multiple paradigms from the information I have provided.

Besides, I am not talking about cognitive science anyway, so making assertions regarding cognitive science is irrelevant.

My, we are getting into a huff here. Black cat might be an appropriate handle.
Now you resort to throwing around insults. I was not in "a huff" before, I am generally a very easy-going person. However, I can be somewhat blunt at times, it is what I've been trained to do in situations like this. Occasionally people here take that as being angry, but it is simply being honest.

But when someone starts insulting me, I do tend to get a tad bit annoyed.

Do not take this so personal.
I wasn't untill you insulted me.

All that I read indicates that Kuhn is a much respected scientist, historian and I think teacher.
That does not mean he is automatically right on all issues. You seem to take his work, even his arbitrary definitions of English words, as the gospel truth. No matter how well-respected he is that is not valid.

Do not take your knife to me please. If you wish to argue with Kuhn, be my guest.
If you did not want a discussion on this matter, you should not have brought it up. You posted this on the board, not Kuhn, thus it is your responsibility to deal with it. You cannot start a discussion and then suddenly abdicate all resonsibility for your assertions to a dead guy. You may have been basing your statements on Kuhn, but you are ultimately the one who made them here. If you cannot support them then cede the point until such time as you can.

[Gillianren]

I hate the word "paradigm." I really, really do. Part of that is that it was one of the buzz-words at my alma mater, and I got sick of it there, but a larger part is that I don't think 90% of the people who use it quite know what it means.

Sometimes, as James Burke showed us in The Day the Universe Changed, everything changes all at once. On the other hand, as he showed us in Connections part one through three, the universe changes a little all the time. These things are not, in fact, mutually exclusive. It's just that humans are more likely to notice the big ones.

I've never read Kuhn, but if his style is anything like yours, Coberst, I'll pass. For someone who doesn't seem real jazzed about traditional student-teacher relationships, you're awfully fond of lecturing.

[coberst]

I hate the word "paradigm." I really, really do. Part of that is that it was one of the buzz-words at my alma mater, and I got sick of it there, but a larger part is that I don't think 90% of the people who use it quite know what it means.

Sometimes, as James Burke showed us in The Day the Universe Changed, everything changes all at once. On the other hand, as he showed us in Connections part one through three, the universe changes a little all the time. These things are not, in fact, mutually exclusive. It's just that humans are more likely to notice the big ones.

I've never read Kuhn, but if his style is anything like yours, Coberst, I'll pass. For someone who doesn't seem real jazzed about traditional student-teacher relationships, you're awfully fond of lecturing.

As I mentioned in the OP my post is a means for many people who know little or nothing about these matters to become acquainted with them. Perhaps their curiosty is aroused and they will turn to their library for more information.

Unfortunately many people find that an Internet discussion forum is a form of combat. I do not know why that is necessary but it seems to be the case.

[Swift]

Coberst,
I don't think any of us have been combative. We just don't agree with you and have presented reasons why we don't. You can defend them or not, but you can't just dump the responsibility on Kuhn.

Maybe the problem is your "post is a means for many people who know little or nothing about these matters to become acquainted with them". Some of us know a lot about these matters, either by reading about them or by being practicing scientists. If you just want to lecture and not have a discussion, this is probably the wrong place for it. As long as we keep things within the rules, if it gets brought up here it will be debated.

[N C More]

This all sounds so familiar....Oh yeah. (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=35512)

[R.A.F.]

Unfortunately many people find that an Internet discussion forum is a form of combat. I do not know why that is necessary but it seems to be the case.

You don't understand why people here would disagree with you??

Are you serious???

Look at your first paragraph...

As I mentioned in the OP my post is a means for many people who know little or nothing about these matters to become acquainted with them. Perhaps their curiosty is aroused and they will turn to their library for more information.

emphasis mine...

What you have done is come to a science board, and "preached" that the posters know little or nothing about scientific matters.

...and you "don't know why" posters might tend to disagree with you??

Come on....

[0-lee]

Hm, if I understand it right, Kuhn says that scientists have means to do science and that these means are subject to change, and at the same time may influence their practicing science. Is that true?

What makes me wonder is some persistence on science being systematically. What´s the reasoning behind that science must be systematically? And is it systematically all the time?

[Van Rijn]

This all sounds so familiar....Oh yeah. (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=35512)

Wow. It's deja vu all over again!

[coberst]

Hm, if I understand it right, Kuhn says that scientists have means to do science and that these means are subject to change, and at the same time may influence their practicing science. Is that true?

What makes me wonder is some persistence on science being systematically. What´s the reasoning behind that science must be systematically? And is it systematically all the time?

Reasoning is about systematizing thought in an effort to reach logical conclusions. Experiece shows us that reasoned thought can more clearly show us how to survive in the world we live in.

[Nicolas]

Reasoning is about systematizing thought in an effort to reach logical conclusions. Experiece shows us that reasoned thought can more clearly show us how to survive in the world we live in.

That's what we call overhere "an open door".

However, I too see a part of science that does not have to with reasoning. It is the part of the accidental discovery, or the trial and error approach. In those cases, only when an interesting result is found, the process of reasoning starts.

[TriangleMan]

For those of you who may be new to BABB, say within the last year or so, you may want to read this thread (http://www.skepticfriends.org/forum/topic.asp?ARCHIVE=true&TOPIC_ID=3047) before deciding whether to continue pursuing this topic with coberst.

[Nicolas]

I might not be able to shuffle a definition of "science" out of the blue, but I do science. I know what science is. Only in practice, not in philosofical terms. I could try to express it in normal English though :).

Not to compare myself with Einstein in any way, but that's what I like about his definition. He simply says where it's at. He isn't formulating a definition, he's giving you the point.

Specialized jargon is nice, but it also is an (often unnecessary) boundary when trying to communicate with people outside the field.

I got quite angry when people kept on rambling about "cognitive" (not on the internet) with nobody being able to give me a useful definition. When I finaly found out a concise meaning myself, I could read the texts involving the subject like any other text. cognitive = involving thought processes to obtain information. Many psychologists will now be on their hind legs, but at least I can work with such a bitesize, plain English definition. Suddenly it was all clear what was meant with cognitive cockpit environments, cognitive control modes, cognitive processes needed to steer a certain system.

When they come with definitions like "having the ability to know" but more vague, I really am no step further in understanding texts.
I mean, what on earth is a "having the ability to know" process needed to obtain situational awareness in a SSSI (single sensor, single indicator = a separate dial for each variable) plane :D.

[coberst]

That's what we call overhere "an open door".

However, I too see a part of science that does not have to with reasoning. It is the part of the accidental discovery, or the trial and error approach. In those cases, only when an interesting result is found, the process of reasoning starts.

I agree.

[0-lee]

What I wanted to ask about was much more simple questions:

Is ´being systematically´ a substantial criterion that can be used to decide
weather some kind of activity is science or not?

Is being systematically always an advantage? No science without being
systematically?

Reasoning is about systematizing thought in an effort to
reach logical conclusions. Experiece shows us that reasoned thought can
more clearly show us how to survive in the world we live in.

As for reasoning, I would understand it as some way of applying logic to
something. So you are saying that applying logic to something in some way
is making an effort to reach logical conclusions.

Can you apply logic to something without making conclusions first?

Logic in reasoning has just the advantage that the logic makes the reasoning appear evident more easily, so we come to think that reasoning not making sufficient use of logic is putting out unreasonable arguments. But even unreasonable arguments can assume the same importance, or even greater importance than reasonable ones to those who put them out.

I dare say that there are other ways to make logical conclusions than by applying logic. The problem is to tell how logical a conclusion is, if you need to find that out. But do you need to know that?

Reasoned thought alone, in the sense of just applying logic to something --- like the problem of how to survice --- doesn´t help to solve that problem. We must not confuse reason and logic here, though none of them alone, and not even both together, solve the problem of surviving.

What´s the role or the need for systematization here, if there is any? Sorry if I´m too stupid, but the importance of systematization is not yet evident to me.

And then, this leads me to the question if there can be science without logic. Maybe we cannot answer that yet because we only cannot imagine yet what could replace logic.

[Swift]

What I wanted to ask about was much more simple questions:

Is ´being systematically´ a substantial criterion that can be used to decide
weather some kind of activity is science or not?

Is being systematically always an advantage? No science without being
systematically?

I would say no and probably yes.
You can be systematic and not be doing science - studying and practicing music for example.

A lot of science is proving things are true, or at least, as much as possible, showing that your explanation works better than another. Generally, the way to do that is examine a system in such detail, as you eliminate sources of error and other explanations, and this is generally done systematically.

I only say probably, because I'm sure someone will show a few exceptions to the rule.

[N C More]

For those of you who may be new to BABB, say within the last year or so, you may want to read this thread (http://www.skepticfriends.org/forum/topic.asp?ARCHIVE=true&TOPIC_ID=3047) before deciding whether to continue pursuing this topic with coberst.

Wow... that was almost 2 years ago!

Wow... the word, "obsession", comes immediately to my mind. http://www.cosgan.de/images/midi/konfus/c025.gif

[coberst]

What I wanted to ask about was much more simple questions:

Is ´being systematically´ a substantial criterion that can be used to decide
weather some kind of activity is science or not?

Is being systematically always an advantage? No science without being
systematically?




As for reasoning, I would understand it as some way of applying logic to
something. So you are saying that applying logic to something in some way
is making an effort to reach logical conclusions.

Can you apply logic to something without making conclusions first?

Logic in reasoning has just the advantage that the logic makes the reasoning appear evident more easily, so we come to think that reasoning not making sufficient use of logic is putting out unreasonable arguments. But even unreasonable arguments can assume the same importance, or even greater importance than reasonable ones to those who put them out.

I dare say that there are other ways to make logical conclusions than by applying logic. The problem is to tell how logical a conclusion is, if you need to find that out. But do you need to know that?

Reasoned thought alone, in the sense of just applying logic to something --- like the problem of how to survice --- doesn´t help to solve that problem. We must not confuse reason and logic here, though none of them alone, and not even both together, solve the problem of surviving.

What´s the role or the need for systematization here, if there is any? Sorry if I´m too stupid, but the importance of systematization is not yet evident to me.

And then, this leads me to the question if there can be science without logic. Maybe we cannot answer that yet because we only cannot imagine yet what could replace logic.


I think that you are correct “As for reasoning, I would understand it as some way of applying logic to something”.

I would say that logic is the principles of a domain of knowledge. I contend that Wal-Mart is the logic of capitalism. I mean that Wal-Mart is a manifestation of capitalism when its principles are carefully adhered to.

The word ‘logic’ generally is used as the ‘principles of reasoning’. Aristotle was the first to define the principles of reasoning.

Science is a domain of knowledge. Economics, physics, football, etc. can be studied as a science. Football is a domain of knowledge as well as well as a sport. Science exists with or without logic. Something can be a domain of knowledge without a complete set of principles. I am not so sure about this but it seems correct.

[coberst]

I think that anything worth writing is often something worth repeating.

I think Gandhi said something to the effect that in the begining they laugh, later they become angry, then later they join up.

I am at the laughter and angry stage now. I can understand the laughter but the anger has me confused. But I suspect Socrates would not agree completely. If you find something of value embrace it and do not not be detered by those who do not understand.

You can tell that even though they scoff they begin to become conscious of the matters discussed. Consciousness of a matter precedes knowing of a matter.

[TheBlackCat]

I am not angry. The only reason I am slightly peeved is because you blatantly insulted me. But then proceeding to ignore me certainly doesn't help your cause. Other people also feel like you directly insulted them. I don't see why that is so difficult for you to understand.

[Swift]

<snip>
Science is a domain of knowledge. Economics, physics, football, etc. can be studied as a science. Football is a domain of knowledge as well as well as a sport. Science exists with or without logic. Something can be a domain of knowledge without a complete set of principles. I am not so sure about this but it seems correct.
I do not agree. Science is a domain of knowledge, but not all domains of knowledge are science. One could scientifically study aspects of football, such as the biophysics of football players or the sociology of football teams. But that does not make football a science. There are aspects of science that make it a different kind of domain of knowledge than other types of domains of knowledge and it is not just the possible existence of paradigms.

Coberst, to me this whole discussion is almost an example of non-critical thinking. You express your ideas to practioners of the thing you are discussing, who point out aspects where your model doesn't work, yet you do not modify your model given any of this new information. It's a free world, you can believe anything you like, but I don't see how you are demonstrating critical thinking.

[Nicolas]

I think that anything worth writing is often something worth repeating.

I think Gandhi said something to the effect that in the begining they laugh, later they become angry, then later they join up.

I am at the laughter and angry stage now. I can understand the laughter but the anger has me confused. But I suspect Socrates would not agree completely. If you find something of value embrace it and do not not be detered by those who do not understand.

You can tell that even though they scoff they begin to become conscious of the matters discussed. Consciousness of a matter precedes knowing of a matter.

Am I wrong when I interpret this as you saying that we

*will join up with you in the end, so you definately are right.
*we simply don't understand what you're saying, so don't question the message but the audience when the response isn't fully positive
*we are simply unconscious of the matter and don't know it. Again the source of the kind of reactions is at the audience and not in the message.

Maybe it is this overconfidence, yes even arrogance in your messages that makes people hostile towards your message. This is a large board with many well educated people, so the safe thing would have been to assume that some are very familiar with philosophy, psychology and the matter you lecture here.

Oh and one more extremely important aspect of philosophy: not everything written in a book or said by a big philosopher/psychologist is true. Au contraire, that's the whole point of philosophy. My high school math teacher never got that. "Socrates said it, so it's true my boy!"

[R.A.F.]

Wow... the word, "obsession", comes immediately to my mind.

I was thinking more of a skip in the record. I keep hearing the same "phrases" over, and over, and over again...

When I encounter a record that has a bad skip, I throw it away...

I think that anything worth writing is often something worth repeating.

That's what we're talking about. You might think it's worthwhile, but there are a lot of folks here who don't.

[coberst]

Black Cat

I refuse to be drawn into a verbal spitting match.

[coberst]

Am I wrong when I interpret this as you saying that we

*will join up with you in the end, so you definately are right.
*we simply don't understand what you're saying, so don't question the message but the audience when the response isn't fully positive
*we are simply unconscious of the matter and don't know it. Again the source of the kind of reactions is at the audience and not in the message.

Maybe it is this overconfidence, yes even arrogance in your messages that makes people hostile towards your message. This is a large board with many well educated people, so the safe thing would have been to assume that some are very familiar with philosophy, psychology and the matter you lecture here.

Oh and one more extremely important aspect of philosophy: not everything written in a book or said by a big philosopher/psychologist is true. Au contraire, that's the whole point of philosophy. My high school math teacher never got that. "Socrates said it, so it's true my boy!"

I have learned it is not wise to engage in a discussion with someone who controls the micrphone.

[N C More]

Coberst, to me this whole discussion is almost an example of non-critical thinking. You express your ideas to practioners of the thing you are discussing, who point out aspects where your model doesn't work, yet you do not modify your model given any of this new information. It's a free world, you can believe anything you like, but I don't see how you are demonstrating critical thinking.

Ironic...isn't it? http://www.cosgan.de/images/smilie/tiere/c045.gif

[coberst]

RAF

There was once a movie that was entitled "The Magnificant Obsession". I do not remember much about it but I suspect it was about some marvelous experience. An obsession is a marvelious experience that comes very seldom in anyones life. It may be irrational. Gahndi, Socrates, MLK are a few examples of such irrational obsessions.

I suspect a person has to reach a mid to late age to follow such obsessions. I suspect such things are always counter to the shouts of the herd.

[coberst]

Critical Thinking is one of my obsessions. Everybody is a critical thinker but few have ever been taught or have studied Critical Thinking. There is a significant difference between critical thinking and CT. Our schools and colleges are begining to teach it but few adults know CT.

[Gillianren]

I think that anything worth writing is often something worth repeating.

I think Gandhi said something to the effect that in the begining they laugh, later they become angry, then later they join up.

I am at the laughter and angry stage now. I can understand the laughter but the anger has me confused. But I suspect Socrates would not agree completely. If you find something of value embrace it and do not not be detered by those who do not understand.

You can tell that even though they scoff they begin to become conscious of the matters discussed. Consciousness of a matter precedes knowing of a matter.

I feel I speak for the majority here when I say that we're not angry. We're bored, and rather wish you'd move on to maybe something interesting, or at least correct.

Conciousness of a matter does not necessarily precede accepting it, either. I'm concious that there are people who can't accept the science in front of them in such diverse fields as evolution and the Apollo missions, but that doesn't make them right, just vocally wrong.

[0-lee]

Critical Thinking is one of my obsessions.

How do you describe critical thinking?

[coberst]

How do you describe critical thinking?


CT (Critical Thinking)

I once asked a philosophy professor “What is philosophy about?” He said philosophy is “radically critical self-consciousness”. This was 35 years ago. Only in the last seven years have I begun to understand that statement

I took a number of courses in philosophy three decades ago but it was not until I began to study and understand Critical Thinking that I began to understand what “radically critical self-consciousness” meant.

I consider CT to be ‘philosophy light’. CT differs from other subject matter such as mathematics and geography in that it requires, for success, that the student develop a significant change in attitude.

Anyone who has been in military service recognizes the significant attitude adjustment introduced into all recruits in the eight weeks of boot camp. During the first eight weeks of military service each recruit is introduced to the proper military attitude. During the eight weeks of basic training there is certain knowledge and skills that the recruit learns but primarily s/he undergoes a significant attitude adjustment.

I would identify the CT attitude adjustment to be a movement from naïve common sense realism to critical self-consciousness. It is necessary to free many words and concepts from the limited meaning attached by normal usage—such a separation requires that the learner hold in abeyance the normal sort of concept associations.

The individual who has made the attitude adjustment recognizes that reality is multilayered and that one can only penetrate those layers through a critical attitude toward both the self and the world. To be critical does not mean to be negative, as is a common misunderstanding.

If we were to follow the cat and the turtle as they make their way through the forest we would observe two fundamentally different ways that a creature might make its way through life.

The turtle withdraws into its shell when it bumps into something new, and remains such until that something new disappears or remains long enough to become familiar to the turtle. The cat is conscious of almost everything within the range of its senses, and studies all it perceives until its curiosity is satisfied.

Formal education teaches by telling so that the graduate is prepared with a sufficient database to get a job. Such an education efficiently prepares one to make a living, but this efficiency is at the cost of curiosity and imagination. Such an education does not prepare an individual to become critically self-conscious.

If we wish to emulate the cat rather than the turtle we must revitalize our curiosity and imagination after formal education. That revitalized curiosity and imagination, together with self directed study prepares each of us for a fulfilling life that includes the ecstasy of understanding.

I think that radically critical self-consciousness combines the attitude adjustment of CT and combines it with the curiosity of the cat and then takes that combination to a radical level.

A good place to begin CT is: http://www.bu.edu/wcp/Papers/Educ/EducHare.htm

[0-lee]

Aristotle was the first to define the principles of reasoning.


Where did he do that? That might be something interesting to read :)

BTW, what about reason? I mean did Kant and/or his successors say anything about the relationship between logic and reason?

[coberst]

I feel I speak for the majority here when I say that we're not angry. We're bored, and rather wish you'd move on to maybe something interesting, or at least correct.

Conciousness of a matter does not necessarily precede accepting it, either. I'm concious that there are people who can't accept the science in front of them in such diverse fields as evolution and the Apollo missions, but that doesn't make them right, just vocally wrong.

Gill

I think that consciousness of a matter is a necessary condition for gaining knowledge. We are aware of many things but conscious of much less. We are conscious of many things but knowledgeable of much less. Consciousness happens when we focus our attention on something we are aware of. Knowledge requires a step further than consciousness.

[0-lee]

CT (Critical Thinking)
I think that radically critical self-consciousness combines the attitude adjustment of CT and combines it with the curiosity of the cat and then takes that combination to a radical level.


How do you avoid that everything would mean nothing to you then?

[Fram]

I have learned it is not wise to engage in a discussion with someone who controls the micrphone.

And in what way do you not have equal access to the microphone? More to the point, how can you defend critical thinking if you won't engage in a critical discussion?

[0-lee]

A lot of science is proving things are true, or at least, as much as possible, showing that your explanation works better than another. Generally, the way to do that is examine a system in such detail, as you eliminate sources of error and other explanations, and this is generally done systematically.


Hm, there must be more to systematicality than that. Doing as you describe would mean to obey the rules of an existing system and only be able to tell weather you can find errors within it or not. Ok, it´s common that when you cannot find errors, a system --- or a theory --- can taken to be relevant, taken to be not yet disproved. Systematicality would only help you not to miss checking for something.

But since there´s more to science than just verifying itselfe, there must also be much more to systematicality. Or there is not, dunno.

[coberst]

And in what way do you not have equal access to the microphone? More to the point, how can you defend critical thinking if you won't engage in a critical discussion?

The moderator controls the microphone.

[Swift]

I feel I speak for the majority here when I say that we're not angry. We're bored, and rather wish you'd move on to maybe something interesting, or at least correct.

One thing that does keep me coming back is that some of these questions are interesting, even if some people think they have all the answers to these questions.

A couple of the postings here have raised a question in my mind: What is Science? What are the properties of science that make this "domain of knowledge" different than other domains of knowledge? How many of the differences arise from the nature of the knowledge and how many arise from the way the information is obtained. Even as a practioner, I don't have a pat answer.

I think O-lee's comments about being systematic is part of it.

Maybe we can discuss this.

[0-lee]

My approach to distinguish science from other domains (not neccessarily of knowledge, especially since we know only so little) would be to look at the methods that are in use.

I´m not sure if it´s still being used or how much importance there still is to it, but making use of falsifications (Popper) appears to be an important one.

But then, you may find so many other domains where falsification is a method --- in a very practical sense, like experiencing what works and what does not.

If technology is an application of science, that would be a domain which shows you what works and what not.

So what about science that doesn´t have an application (yet)?

[coberst]

Swift

I leafed through the book looking for a more clear definition of what is science and who are scientists. As best I could find he recognized this ambiguity and seemed to indicate that all 'scientists' ask the same question.

[0-lee]

Which question?

[Gillianren]

Gill

I think that consciousness of a matter is a necessary condition for gaining knowledge. We are aware of many things but conscious of much less. We are conscious of many things but knowledgeable of much less. Consciousness happens when we focus our attention on something we are aware of. Knowledge requires a step further than consciousness.

A) It's Gillian, not Gill.

B) That had nothing to do with what I said. Congratulations!

[HenrikOlsen]

Hm, there must be more to systematicality than that. Doing as you describe would mean to obey the rules of an existing system and only be able to tell weather you can find errors within it or not. Ok, it´s common that when you cannot find errors, a system --- or a theory --- can taken to be relevant, taken to be not yet disproved. Systematicality would only help you not to miss checking for something.

But since there´s more to science than just verifying itselfe, there must also be much more to systematicality. Or there is not, dunno.
Actually in a very real sense science is to a very large extend verifying, if you need to revise your ideas verification becomes very important to ensure your new ideas aren't woo.
Coberst's puzzle idea is ok for the part where you have to revise your thinking, but it's not relevant for the verification part, for that you need honesty instead of puzzle solving ability and knowledge about how you can fool yourself into believing experiments confirm your shiny new idea.
Central to science is the repeated attempts at disproving theories.

[Argos]

Re Aristotle, although a man of reason he was not a man of science, since he neglected empirical evidence. Aristotle believed that knowledge can be achieved through reason alone. This is not science.

It´s funny how people pick him as an example of scientist, which he wasn´t.

[Maksutov]

This all sounds so familiar....Oh yeah. (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=35512)Perhaps when he was training to be an engineer, his major was Waste Management with a concentration in Recycling. That might explain the same material showing up year after year...

http://www.cosgan.de/images/smilie/muede/d045.gif

[Maksutov]

Critical Thinking is one of my obsessions...I think it would be fair to say, based on the seemingly endless quotes in previous posts, that Kuhn is one of those other obsessions.

Let's see what the good old dictionaries have to say about such a thing:ob·sess (http://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/schwa.gifb-shttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/ebreve.gifshttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/prime.gif, http://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/obreve.gifb-)
v. ob·sessed, ob·sess·ing, ob·sess·es

v. tr.
To preoccupy the mind excessively. <His unproven ideas obsessed him.>
Haunt like a ghost; pursue; <Fear of illness obsesses her. [syn: haunt, ghost]>v. intr.
To have the mind excessively preoccupied with a single emotion or topic: <She's dead. And you're still obsessing. —Scott Turow>
To preoccupy intensely or abnormally <was obsessed with success>
To engage in obsessive thinking <Solve problems rather than obsess about them. —Carol Tavris>
Be preoccupied with something; "She is obsessing over her weight."from Dictionary.com (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=obsess) with minor mods for continuityTaint healthy, McGee. ;)

[0-lee]

Central to science is the repeated attempts at disproving theories.

My understanding of science is that disproving theories would be a very important means, but not actually central to it. If there were better means available, science would probably use them --- and still be science.

Maybe I´m wrong and it´s not a good idea to look at the means being used by science when trying to find out what science is.

But I guess we could agree on that science is something that has or makes use of means.

[Maksutov]

My understanding of science is that disproving theories would be a very important means, but not actually central to it. If there were better means available, science would probably use them --- and still be science...I don't like the word "proof" in this context, but will use it for continuity. Science is the process that creates theories that describe and make predictions about the nature of Nature. To be an acceptable theory, it must be (among other things) possible to attempt to "disprove" it using scientific methods. Otherwise it is not a scientific theory, but instead falls back into the categories of hypothesis or, more likely, speculation.

Consider the ramifications of a theory for which there is no scientific means to attempt "disproofs". Not very scientific, eh?

[Celestial Mechanic]

Critical Thinking--The Cologne Commercial
Critical Thinking is one of my obsessions.
The following is the script of a commercial for a new fragrance called (you guessed it!) "Critical Thinking".

[The commercial is filmed in grainy black-and-white, like all pretentious movies, music videos and commercials these days. The scene is a beach with crashing waves and seagulls plainly heard. Two twits, one an anorexic female, the other a retired gentleman who does not look like coberst, both laden with tatoos and body piercings, are seen.]

[Female Tormented Twit] Critical Thinking!

[Male Tormented Twit] Critical Thinking is one of my obsessions.

[FTT] Oh, the torment!

[MTT] My paradigm is shifting.

[FTT] I read Kuhn and Popper under its intoxicating spell!

[MTT] Oh, the merest scent of September Scholarship! How I obsess over Critical Thinking!

[FTT] Oh, the torment of Critical Thinking! The torment! The torment!

[Show bottle of Critical Thinking. Fade to black.]


I can't wait for someone to try spraying a little of this my way at some department store! ;) :lol:

[Celestial Mechanic]

Critical Thinking--The Cologne Commercial

The following is the script of a commercial for a new fragrance called (you guessed it!) "Critical Thinking".
Another silly post from Celestial Mechanic. Oh, the torment! The torment!

[Maksutov]

Perhaps our esteemed CT lecturer should get into the confectionery business;

http://img226.imageshack.us/img226/3316/starburstcoberst54jy.th.jpg (http://img226.imageshack.us/my.php?image=starburstcoberst54jy.jpg)

Sending a complementary boxful to Nancy will enable another retirement! :)

[Maksutov]

Another silly post from Celestial Mechanic. Oh, the torment! The torment!Nah, it wasn't silly, just beyond our understanding, seeing as how you're up to 2010 and the rest of us are four years behind! ;)

http://img53.imageshack.us/img53/6386/celestialmechanic20107ts.jpg

[HenrikOlsen]

Ok, now you're starting to attack the man not the ideas.
However silly you think the ideas are, this is not accepted on this board.

[Maksutov]

Ok, now you're starting to attack the man not the ideas.
However silly you think the ideas are, this is not accepted on this board.No, these rather droll posts were not attacks of any kind. They were directed toward what has been written by the OP over and over and over, to the point where about all that's left to post is some gentle humor. :)

[0-lee]

I don't like the word "proof" in this context, but will use it for continuity. Science is the process that creates theories that describe and make predictions about the nature of Nature. To be an acceptable theory, it must be (among other things) possible to attempt to "disprove" it using scientific methods. Otherwise it is not a scientific theory, but instead falls back into the categories of hypothesis or, more likely, speculation.


I like this description! But how do scientists know if that what they are trying to describe and make predictions about is actually Nature?

[N C More]

No, these rather droll posts were not attacks of any kind. They were directed toward what has been written by the OP over and over and over, to the point where about all that's left to post is some gentle humor. :)

There's a great deal of inherent humor here, actually. One would think that if someone was obsessed by a concept, that they would employ said concept at every possible opportunity, wouldn't one?

Like I said, ironic isn't it?

[Gillianren]

I like this description! But how do scientists know if that what they are trying to describe and make predictions about is actually Nature?

Well, they observe it first.

[Celestial Mechanic]

Nah, it wasn't silly, just beyond our understanding, seeing as how you're up to 2010 and the rest of us are four years behind! ;)
And this coming from someone with 7,200+ posts! :clap: :clap: :clap:

[HenrikOlsen]

I like this description! But how do scientists know if that what they are trying to describe and make predictions about is actually Nature?
The only test of science is the experiment.

The way scientisis know that they are describing the world is by trying to predict how the world reacts to an experiment, then do that experiment to see if the prediction was correct. If possible an experiment that hasn't been done before so the result isn't known beforehand.

[0-lee]

Is science limited to Nature? If there were a science about some human practice, maybe football or flyfishing or politics or education, that would be a science not about nature but about an artifact.

[0-lee]

Coberst,

you need to become free from critical thinking. You already made up your consciousness, now make another step and shift that paradigm, and then make the next step which is becoming free from paradigms.

[coberst]

Coberst,

you need to become free from critical thinking. You already made up your consciousness, now make another step and shift that paradigm, and then make the next step which is becoming free from paradigms.

Everyone is a critical thinker but few are Critical Thinkers. I consider CT is be the bedrock of good judgment. CT is critical thinking coupled with the understanding that we all tend to be egocentric. The next paradigm up from critical thinking is CT. I suspect to become free of CT is to regress to critical thinking.

[coberst]

O-Lee

I think you raise an interesting idea about the relationship of a science without a paradigm. Kuhn defines a science without a paradigm to be one where any idea is as good as any other. A paradigm provides the community coherence instead of chaos.

I suspect that since everyone thinks that critical thinking is an innate human quality we might say that the science of rational thinking has no paradigm for most people. However, I think that those who work in the science of rational thought recognize Critical Thinking as that paradigm.

Certainly our educational institutions must think the paradigm is CT since they seem to be working diligently in teaching CT to young people.

[R.A.F.]

Define critical thinking...

Define Critical Thinking...

...and while you're at it, define Critical thinking, and critical Thinking.

[coberst]

Define critical thinking...

Define Critical Thinking...

...and while you're at it, define Critical thinking, and critical Thinking.

I have seen a number of definitions of Critical Thinking and have seen a number of opinions of critical thinking. I shall give you my considered opinion of the definition of these two important concepts. I have never run into the concepts Critical thinking or critical Thinking.

Critical Thinking is a combination of knowledge, skills, and attitudes.

The knowledge consists of: the principles of thought as set forth by Aristotle, the knowledge of the differences between inductive, deductive, and dialectical reasoning, knowledge of the difference between uni-logical and multi-logical type of problems, and more that do not come to mind at the moment. The skill consists of applying this knowledge in a coherent fashion.

I consider CT to be ‘philosophy light’. CT differs from other subject matter such as mathematics and geography in that it requires, for success, that the student develop a significant change in attitude.

The attitude required is a critical self-consciousness. This means that the student of CT become conscious of many characteristics of thought that are innate. The student of CT must have this understanding so that s/he can build the intellectual character so as to combat these irrational innate characteristics.

My experience leads me to conclude that much of the population in general thinks that critical thinking is similar to Reagan’s “trust but verify”. Others think that critical thinking is equal to the knowledge and skills I have listed for CT but excluding the critical self-consciousness aspect.

I think that a good place to begin study of CT is: http://www.bu.edu/wcp/Papers/Educ/EducHare.htm

[R.A.F.]

I have never run into the concepts Critical thinking or critical Thinking.

And I'm not surprised that the point I was making went right over your head...

...on a related note...you have yet to differentiate between the terms Critical Thinking, and critical thinking.

Will you ever do so???

The moderator controls the microphone.

Have you in any way been "controlled" here? You've had free reign to post on and on about your "ideas", so why are you so concerned with the "microphone"??

[coberst]

R.A.F

Do you have difficulty reading? Or is this an instance for egocentricity inhabiting rational action?

[R.A.F.]

Do you have difficulty reading?

Is it my inability to read?...or your inability to explain rationally?

Or is this an instance for egocentricity inhabiting rational action?

Your "word salad" has grown less and less tasty.

[Nicolas]

The moderator controls the microphone.

It might be relevant to note that I am not a moderator, so that argument is no reason not to discuss things with me. You made a statement, I gave my interpretation as a board member just like you are. So if you feel like discussing that interpretation, feel free to do so, we've got the same rights overhere.

[coberst]

It might be relevant to note that I am not a moderator, so that argument is no reason not to discuss things with me. You made a statement, I gave my interpretation as a board member just like you are. So if you feel like discussing that interpretation, feel free to do so, we've got the same rights overhere.

If you are no longer a moderator and can no longer ban me from this forum I will be willing to engage with you. Point out which of your posts you would like me to respond to.

[Nicolas]

I never was a moderator.

I do not ask you to respond, but you said -or seemed to say- that you would not respond because I was a moderator, which I'm not and never was.

And even if I was a moderator, what would make you assume that I wasn't honest enough to keep your posts unaltered?

[0-lee]

O-Lee

I think you raise an interesting idea about the relationship of a science without a paradigm. Kuhn defines a science without a paradigm to be one where any idea is as good as any other. A paradigm provides the community coherence instead of chaos.


My idea was only that you might have become a victim of CT. The point was that you would avoid ´chaos´ by making use of paradigms. Doing so might explain why paradigms and Kuhn are so important to you.

Chaos would be like, as I asked about some posts ago, that everything would mean nothing to you. Such is a possible outcome of CT.

Hm, now I´m curious: What are your paradigms?

[0-lee]

I suspect to become free of CT is to regress to critical thinking.

Yeah, you rise an interesting question here, like: What comes beyond CT?

But I think it is quite unlikely that someone would drop back from CT to critical thinking.

What comes beyond CT imho depends to a great deal on what each individual makes out of it. My idea is that you gain a great amount of freedom and can come to see the world from a much happier point of view once you leave CT behind. You also tend to solve problems rather than puzzles.

Maybe, if I were Kuhn, I might come to say that leaving paradigms and CT behind would be a prerequisite to switching from puzzle-solving to problem-solving. But that´s something in no way thought out yet.

Ah, to make this more clear, I do not say you would stop to make use of CT. But you would use it in another way, and as some means --- or some way of thinking --- amongst others. Some of the other possible ways of thinking would help to avoid the ´chaos´.

[coberst]

I never was a moderator.

I do not ask you to respond, but you said -or seemed to say- that you would not respond because I was a moderator, which I'm not and never was.

And even if I was a moderator, what would make you assume that I wasn't honest enough to keep your posts unaltered?

Heaven only knows.

[Nicolas]

In this case, I think that you would only know, as the remark came from you and not from heaven.

[coberst]

Yeah, you rise an interesting question here, like: What comes beyond CT?

But I think it is quite unlikely that someone would drop back from CT to critical thinking.

What comes beyond CT imho depends to a great deal on what each individual makes out of it. My idea is that you gain a great amount of freedom and can come to see the world from a much happier point of view once you leave CT behind. You also tend to solve problems rather than puzzles.

Maybe, if I were Kuhn, I might come to say that leaving paradigms and CT behind would be a prerequisite to switching from puzzle-solving to problem-solving. But that´s something in no way thought out yet.

Ah, to make this more clear, I do not say you would stop to make use of CT. But you would use it in another way, and as some means --- or some way of thinking --- amongst others. Some of the other possible ways of thinking would help to avoid the ´chaos´.

Paradigm is an important concept. I suggest you read Thomas Kuhn's book "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions".

[0-lee]

Hm, where can I download the book?

[Fram]

Coberst, why won't you answe Nicolas? He isn't a moderator, he hasn't threatened to ban you, he asked critical questions of your ideas. If you won't answer these, then what are you actually doing here?

[coberst]

Coberst, why won't you answe Nicolas? He isn't a moderator, he hasn't threatened to ban you, he asked critical questions of your ideas. If you won't answer these, then what are you actually doing here?

What questions? I do not understand your post.

[Nicolas]

The point is, as said before, that you indicated you would not respond because I was a fraudulous moderator. Now that I've indicated that I am not a moderator (fraudulous doesn't matter, I have no power on this board ;) :)) you can post what you wanted to say then. If you don't want to, you even can choose not to post. I do not have the power to generate a fake reply by yours.

[coberst]

Understanding stuff

I imagine comprehension to be a hierarchy, resembling a pyramid, with awareness at the base followed by consciousness, succeeded by knowing, with understanding at the pinnacle.

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 scientist, with their paradigms, is puzzle solvers. Puzzles require ingenuity but seldom understanding.

I have for some time been interested in trying to understand what ‘understand’ means. I have reached the conclusion that ‘curiosity then caring’ is the first steps toward understanding. Without curiosity we care for nothing. Once curiosity is in place then caring becomes necessary for understanding.

I suspect our first experience with ‘understanding’ may be our first friendship. I think that this first friendship may be an example of what Carl Sagan meant by “Understanding is a kind of ecstasy”.

I also suspect that the boy who falls in love with automobiles and learns everything he can about repairing the junk car he bought has discovered ‘understanding’.

I suspect many people go their complete life and never have an intellectual experience that culminates in the “ecstasy of understanding”. How can this be true? I think that our educational system is designed primarily for filling heads with knowledge and hasn’t time to waste on ‘understanding’.

Understanding an intellectual matter must come in the adult years if it is to ever come to many of us. I think that it is very important for an adult to find something intellectual that will excite his or her curiosity and concern sufficiently so as to motivate the effort necessary to understand.

Understanding does not come easily but it can be “a kind of ecstasy”.

I think of understanding as being a creation of meaning by the thinker. As one attempts to understand something that person will construct through imagination a model--like a papier-mâché--of the meaning. Like an artist painting her understanding of something. As time goes by the model takes on what the person understands about that which is studied. The model is very subjective and you and I may study something for some time and we both have learned to understand it but if it were possible to project an image of our model they would be unidentifiable perhaps by the other. Knowledge has a universal quality but not understanding.

[Nicolas]

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.

An engineer (or researcher) who only knows but does not understand will never get the results he wants with full consciousness, so he can never accept full responsibility for his product if this occurs on relevant aspects of key elements. If you as an engineer come to the conclusion that an engineer knows rather than understands, I can't help but think that you've kept the approach needed to pass an exam during your engineering career. Not a pleasant thought.

I really wonder how you ever did tradeoffs between different design options if you did not understand the principles used in them.


Of course an engineer often uses rules of thumbs, applets and formulas or principles of which he does not understand -or even know- the full details, but if you can stretch it to a general conclusion I really fail to see how such an engineer could ever function in his job.

[R.A.F.]

I have for some time been interested in trying to understand what ‘understand’ means.

BOY this is getting old...

[N C More]

Quote:
Originally Posted by coberst
I have for some time been interested in trying to understand what ‘understand’ means


BOY this is getting old...

Personally, I'm no longer interested in understanding why anyone can be so fixated on understanding what 'understand' means, at the exclusion of understanding much of anything that's actually relevant to our understanding.

Around and around it goes....where it stops....nobody knows. Semantics, hours of fun for the whole family!

[coberst]

Nicolas

I claim that curiosity and caring are necessary conditions for understanding. Understanding is a far step beyond knowing. I will not examine a matter for the purpose of understanding it unless I am curious about it. I must care enough about the matter to do the intellectual work necessary to understand.

It is, I think, common knowledge that the way to make good grades in school is to learn how to take exams. Making good grades in higher education is very important if one hopes to turn the degree into a good job. Time is at a premium in college, grades are very important, understanding takes a great deal of time, colleges seldom if ever give essay tests, essay tests are the only way to ascertain understanding, therefore few graduates in the natural sciences have ever made an effort to understand.

After graduation, without any instruction in understanding very few individuals ever study anything sufficiently to understand it.

When we are schooled we do not require curiosity or caring, the teacher provides us with the incentive to learn what the teacher requires us to learn.

Understanding is a step beyond knowing and is seldom required or measured by schooling. Understanding is generally of disinterested knowledge, i.e. disinterested knowledge is an intrinsic value. Disinterested knowledge is not a means but an end. It is knowledge I seek because I desire to know it. I mean the term ‘disinterested knowledge’ as similar to ‘pure research’, as compared to ‘applied research’. Pure research seeks to know truth unconnected to any specific application.

Understanding is often difficult and time consuming and the justification is not extrinsic but intrinsic.

[Nicolas]

In my opinion, understanding is required in your job as an engineer. If you claim you stick to knowing there, I think you were no good engineer.

About schools and understanding: we've been through that before.

In general: why do all your topics have this structure:

the majority (or our schools) does this, but it can be better (or deeper, or more adanced, or different): like this. Why this negative attitude towards the majority? Many people here do not identify themselves in it. I even identify your description of your engineering practice to be sub-standard compared to what I identify as the majority of engineers. So I suggest some reflecting on the correctness of your vision of the majority's behaviour (and check out student behaviour while you're at it, the remarks about passing exams are correct but students do other things as well).

If you as an engineer thought of only very little subjects to be worthy of your time to understand them, it appears to me as a lack of responsibility. Of course it doesn't really matter if you're designing photocopiers. I do aircraft. But in either case, a good engineer should try to really understand what he's doing, so he can make the best possible product and accept full responsibility for it.

[coberst]

Nicolas

What does the word ‘understand’ mean?

I have heard and I guess you have also heard professors say “you never understand a subject until you try to teach it”. Is understanding equal to knowledge squared? Is understanding when you have ten pounds of knowledge? Understanding, like knowledge, is a category of comprehension. The two are separate categories.

Mathematics and engineering will give us further insight. Every engineer must be good at ‘doing’ math to get a degree. Is there any engineer who understands math? Perhaps you might find one. I think I understand math only because at mid life I made an effort to understand math.

Understanding is a creation of meaning. It is a gestalt switch. It is a tipping point, it is when water becomes ice, and it is like a paradigm shift.

[hhEb09'1]

After graduation, without any instruction in understanding very few individuals ever study anything sufficiently to understand it.I'd say that was probably wrong.

You might disagree about whether the topics studied were worth studying, but that's another issue.

[farmerjumperdon]

I think I know what it means to understand the word understand.

Mind you, I didn't NEED to go to the dictionary, but felt it might provide some nice confirmation for anyone who is confused by what it means to understand. From Webster's New World Dictionary, School and Office Edition:

- to perceive the meaning of
- to take as the meaning,; infer
- to take as meant; interpret
- to take as a fact
- to learn
- to know the nature, character, etc.
- to have understanding, comprehension, etc.
- to be informed; believe

These work good for me definition-wise.

Granted, this could be trouble if a person does not understand the meaning of perceive, interpret, fact, nature, character, etc, comprehension, informed, etc.

No need to make things so complicated.

[R.A.F.]

Understanding is a creation of meaning.

Or...

Creation is the understanding of meaning...

Creation is the meaning of understanding...

Understanding is the meaning of creation...

Meaning is the creation of understanding...

Meaning is the understanding of creation...

I've just saved you from starting 5 additional threads...:lol:

[farmerjumperdon]

Or...

Creation is the understanding of meaning...

Creation is the meaning of understanding...

Understanding is the meaning of creation...

Meaning is the creation of understanding...

Meaning is the understanding of creation...

I've just saved you from starting 5 additional threads...:lol:

Now you've gone and done it. By replacing "a" with "the" you've created an opening for a whole new line of 6 threads using the word "the." (Not to mention the five left yet to come with the word "a."

[R.A.F.]

By replacing "a" with "the"...

I actually didn't notice I did that until after I posted. :)

[Celestial Mechanic]

[Snip!]I have for some time been interested in trying to understand what ‘understand’ means.[Snip!]
All depends on what your definition of 'is' is. :D

[Nicolas]

Nicolas

What does the word ‘understand’ mean?

I have heard and I guess you have also heard professors say “you never understand a subject until you try to teach it”. Is understanding equal to knowledge squared? Is understanding when you have ten pounds of knowledge? Understanding, like knowledge, is a category of comprehension. The two are separate categories.

Mathematics and engineering will give us further insight. Every engineer must be good at ‘doing’ math to get a degree. Is there any engineer who understands math? Perhaps you might find one. I think I understand math only because at mid life I made an effort to understand math.

Understanding is a creation of meaning. It is a gestalt switch. It is a tipping point, it is when water becomes ice, and it is like a paradigm shift.

This strikes me as very arrogant. You are not one of very few engineers who actually understands something, and that only by time of middle age.

I have done great efforts to understand what was tought to me, rather than just know enough of it to pass an exam. And many, many engineers I know do the same thing. We don't just know some maths or other courses, great parts of it we really understand due to studying the subject at length. We can "play" with the matter beyond the scope of an exam or the single application in which it was tought us. In my opinion, any good engineer should do this. Of course we can't do this for any subject, but we do our best.

And while I don't write books on it and get curly toes by descriptions such as your last sentence, I do feel the clear distinction between simply knowing something and really understanding it. I have experienced it. Time and time again. As do lots of engineers with love for their profession, who make great efforts into really understanding things. They even help each other into understanding subjects. Woops that ain't even egocentric, we must be aliens...:wall:

[Sp1ke]

Ignoring all the fluff around Cobert's lectures, there is an important point. It is very difficult to properly get to grips with a subject if you have no interest in it (i.e. don't care).

Just learning the basic rules of how a combustion engine works won't make you into a mechanic; learning the basic laws of physics won't make you a rocket scientist. The key is being interested in how a car works or how a rocket flies - without that, it's just a memory exercise.

The tricky thing is to find the things that each person is interested in (or, in fact, they should find them out for themselves). All an education system can do is to make the tools available; it's up to the individuals to pick up the tools and use them.

[Celestial Mechanic]

[Snip!]Understanding is a creation of meaning. It is a gestalt switch. It is a tipping point, it is when water becomes ice, and it is like a paradigm shift.
BZZZZT!!!! That will be ten points off for using the phrase "paradigm shift".

I probably ought to deduct points for misuse of the word gestalt as well. But this isn't as egregious a misuse as the Keristan commune's use as their weekly "Potluck Gestalt-O-Ramas"! :eek:

[Nicolas]

Ignoring all the fluff around Cobert's lectures, there is an important point. It is very difficult to properly get to grips with a subject if you have no interest in it (i.e. don't care).

Just learning the basic rules of how a combustion engine works won't make you into a mechanic; learning the basic laws of physics won't make you a rocket scientist. The key is being interested in how a car works or how a rocket flies - without that, it's just a memory exercise.

The tricky thing is to find the things that each person is interested in (or, in fact, they should find them out for themselves). All an education system can do is to make the tools available; it's up to the individuals to pick up the tools and use them.

A very good point. And that is why -although both studies are about equally hard- I can do an Aerospace Engineering study, but would possibly fail in a general engineering study.

I do notice how I only dig into subjects that really interest me, and only really remember details on those subjects. That's why choosing a study and profession that interests you is important :).

[Fram]

What questions? I do not understand your post.

Join the club! You have dodged many remarks in this thread by ignoring them, saying that someone is a moderator when he isn't, saying "heaven only knows", etcetera. You seem to dislike all critical thinking about Critical Thinking, indicating that we are close-minded, egotistical, or just don't understand it. It would be more fruitful if you would engage in an open discussion, where you are prepared to defend your remarks, explain them, react to criticisms, ... Otherwise, all (and there are many) your posts about CT seem very hollow.

[Gerrsun]

RAF

There was once a movie that was entitled "The Magnificant Obsession". I do not remember much about it but I suspect it was about some marvelous experience. An obsession is a marvelious experience that comes very seldom in anyones life. It may be irrational. Gahndi, Socrates, MLK are a few examples of such irrational obsessions.

I suspect a person has to reach a mid to late age to follow such obsessions. I suspect such things are always counter to the shouts of the herd.


Hitler, Jim Jones, and Ted Bundy are a few more examples of obsession.

I'm not saying anything, I'm just saying.

[Nicolas]

I suspect a person has to reach a mid to late age to follow such obsessions. I suspect such things are always counter to the shouts of the herd.

Will you please stop attributing all (your) marvelous properties to (your) mid to late age. I've seen "obsessions" at many ages. And countering the shouts of the herd -also in a more than superficial way- is something that certainly can be seen at young age in many cases. Just to give one example, most people who decide to become a priest decide that way before mid to late age. Not that I want or may discuss religion here.

[Maksutov]

Originally Posted by coberst
RAF

There was once a movie that was entitled "The Magnificant Obsession". I do not remember much about it but I suspect it was about some marvelous experience. An obsession is a marvelious experience that comes very seldom in anyones life. It may be irrational. Gahndi [sic], Socrates, MLK are a few examples of such irrational obsessions.

I suspect a person has to reach a mid to late age to follow such obsessions. I suspect such things are always counter to the shouts of the herd. Hitler, Jim Jones, and Ted Bundy are a few more examples of obsession.

I'm not saying anything, I'm just saying.His own poorly-researched examples betray his premise.

Gandhi was assassinated at 78 and Socrates was executed at ~71, but each of their "obsessions" began at a much earlier age, Gandhi when he was 24, and Socrates while in his 30s.

Martin Luther King was murdered at age 39, but his "obsession" began when he was 24.

For Gerrsun's examples:

Hitler committed suicide at age 56 but his obsessions began when he was in his 20s.

Jim Jones was shot at age 47, his obsession with all things apocalyptic began in 1955 with the founding of The Wings of Deliverance (the precursor to Peoples Temple), when Jones was 25.

Ted Bundy was executed at age 42. His first murder was at age 27, although he admitted to becoming obsessed with sex and violence when he was a child.

Yeah, what a bunch of obsessed late-age guys, eh?

Meanwhile, are there any folks out there who are getting as tired of these repetitious, copy and paste, lecturing OPs as I am?

http://www.cosgan.de/images/smilie/muede/d015.gif

[Nicolas]

getting tired is not how I'd describe it. But presenting some copy/paste work that is by definition incomplete when dealing with philosophy and/or phychology, spicing it up with very debatable comments, while not engaging in a proper discussion, appears rather pointless to me. And from observing a multitude of pointless acts comes indifference in my case. You may call that getting tired of it indeed. I'll start a post on the semantics of Getting Tired (GT) versus becoming indifferent.

[Gillianren]

And I'm not surprised that the point I was making went right over your head...

If it's any consolation, I got your joke!

Hey, Mak, you know there's speculation that Ted Bundy killed as a teenager, which hardly counts as middle-aged. So yeah. What's more, I think such cultural phenomena as Pokemon, Magic cards, and Beanie Babies--all poplular to a greater or lesser degree among kids, at least at one point--all serve to contradict whatever point was being made as well. Sure, they're not exactly life-altering in the same way that, you know, helping the poor is, but I've known people in whom they're still pretty all-consuming.

See, this is the problem I have. For everything Handed Down from On High by Coberst, there is generally direct contradiction that gets ignored. Speaking as someone still (for a few more months, anyway!) under thirty, I'm very tired indeed of being told that I'm inferior because I'm younger. I'm very tired of my college diploma being brushed off as irrelevant and apparently also inferior to just reading a lot or whatever--which I also do.

[Gillianren]

Ignoring all the fluff around Cobert's lectures, there is an important point. It is very difficult to properly get to grips with a subject if you have no interest in it (i.e. don't care).

Just learning the basic rules of how a combustion engine works won't make you into a mechanic; learning the basic laws of physics won't make you a rocket scientist. The key is being interested in how a car works or how a rocket flies - without that, it's just a memory exercise.

The tricky thing is to find the things that each person is interested in (or, in fact, they should find them out for themselves). All an education system can do is to make the tools available; it's up to the individuals to pick up the tools and use them.

But you've failed the Coberst Test: that's clearly worded, makes some kind of sense, and isn't saying that Only You Properly Understand Things.

[Gerrsun]

It seems to me all these obssessive folks all met sticky ends.

Maybe if I pursue mediocrity, I can live to be a couple of hundred years old.

It's been working so far. :P

[Maksutov]

It seems to me all these obssessive folks all met sticky ends.

Maybe if I pursue mediocrity, I can live to be a couple of hundred years old.

It's been working so far. :P:lol:

BTW, Antonio Salieri made to almost 75 and died in bed.

:boohoo:

[Maksutov]

[edit]Hey, Mak, you know there's speculation that Ted Bundy killed as a teenager, which hardly counts as middle-aged...But his first authenticated murder was at 27, which is why I listed that one. Either way, you're right, it's hardly middle age!

http://www.cosgan.de/images/smilie/figuren/a045.gif

[N C More]

But you've failed the Coberst Test: that's clearly worded, makes some kind of sense, and isn't saying that Only You Properly Understand Things.

http://www.cosgan.de/images/midi/frech/c045.gif

[farmerjumperdon]

But you've failed the Coberst Test: that's clearly worded, makes some kind of sense, and isn't saying that Only You Properly Understand Things.

Ahem. Only I Properly Understand Things. Maybe not Everything, but Many Things, or at least A Lot Of Things.

Define Things.

[Maksutov]

[edit]Define Things.Two or more of these (http://images.google.com/url?q=http://www.iweb.cz/%7Evecer/fotky/anim/thing.jpg). Other members of the family were "badder".

[Celestial Mechanic]

BTW, Antonio Salieri made to almost 75 and died in bed.
"Only the good die young" -- Billy Joel

Franz Schubert, age 31
Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, age 35
Vasily Kalinnikov, age 35
Frederic Chopin, age 38
Felix Mendelssohn, age 38

I know there are composers who died younger than these, but none of them made quite the contribution that these have made.

[Sp1ke]

Thanks, all. You inspire me to shift my paradigm to a blue-sky gestalt. Let's push the envelope out of the ballpark and leverage our knowledge-base.

[Nicolas]

Never forget the intrinsic qualities of the ROI of cognitive skills though (why not mix up different jargons eh :D)

[Sp1ke]

"Live fast, die young, and leave a good looking corpse"
(More James Dean than Mozart but the brightest candles do burn quickest)

[Gerrsun]

How many posts before a thread is officially considered hijacked?

[HenrikOlsen]

It's a sobering thought that when Mozart was my age he'd been dead for 5 years.

On the other hand, Bach (JS) lasted 85 years, and easily compares with those on your list when it comes to contributions and being very good at what he did.

Edited to note that it was 65 years.

[Nicolas]

Had I been born in the 18th century, I would have been long dead.

[Tinaa]

merged similiar topics

[Celestial Mechanic]

[Snip!]On the other hand, Bach (JS) lasted 85 years,[Snip!]
1685-1750.

[Celestial Mechanic]

How many posts before a thread is officially considered hijacked?
Can't help it. Dead composers are a lot more interesting than dead philosophies.

[Swift]

It's a sobering thought that when Mozart was my age he'd been dead for 5 years.

Tom Lehrer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Lehrer).
I loved the guy.

[HenrikOlsen]

1685-1750.
Misprint:(
The reference I used has the same dates.

Doesn't ruin my argument though, 65 was still a respectable age at that time.

[Maksutov]

Tom Lehrer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Lehrer).
I loved the guy.He could get pretty sentimental at times, such as in this song:

(spoken introduction)

I'd like to take you now on wings of song, as it were,
and try and help you forget perhaps for a while your
drab, wretched lives. Here's a song all about
spring-time in general, and in particular, about one
of the many delightful pastimes the coming of spring
affords us all.

(sings)

Spring is here, a-suh-puh-ring is here.
Life is skittles and life is beer.
I think the loveliest time of the year is the spring.
I do, don't you? 'Course you do.
But there's one thing that makes spring complete for me,
And makes ev'ry Sunday a treat for me.

All the world seems in tune
On a spring afternoon,
When we're poisoning pigeons in the park.
Ev'ry Sunday you'll see
My sweetheart and me,
As we poison the pigeons in the park.
Sniff, sniff...

http://www.cosgan.de/images/smilie/traurig/g030.gif

[weatherc]

He could get pretty sentimental at times, such as in this song:

[SNIP]

Sniff, sniff...

http://www.cosgan.de/images/smilie/traurig/g030.gifMy pulse is a quicken'n
With each drop of strychn'n
We feed to a pigeon
It just takes a smidgen!
To poison a pigeon in the park!

Yeah, it brings a tear to my eye, as well.

[Celestial Mechanic]

Tom Lehrer wrote:It's not against any religion,
To want to dispose of a pigeon.
In Milwaukee, we have a real problem with seagulls, so I find myself singing:I don't think it should be illegal,
To want to dispose of a seagull.

[coberst]

Is there no adult supervision on this forum?

[Gillianren]

Is there no adult supervision on this forum?

Ooo! Ooo! Irony Police! You've gone from assuming anyone who criticizes you is a mod with the authority to ban you for not liking you to assuming that there's no "adult" supervision because we're allowed to be silly. Since a lot of your assumptions are silly (see your assumption that my boyfriend has been brainwashed), do you not see the contradiction?

[Nicolas]

An addition to this is on your "military" thread, Coberst.

May I express my opinion that on this board you seem not to be acting in the mature and serious you apparently would like to see. If you put the blame on everyone else, misidentify everyone who disagrees with you as a fraudulent mod, call them immature...I think words such as paranoid, martyr and arrogant are more suitable. I'm sorry to say this, it's not that I simply like to put you in a bad light or anything like that. This really is how your behaviour on this board appears to me. I know that this can be interpreted as an ad hominem, but I would like to stress that this opinion is about your style of posting here, not on your person as I do not know you, only your posts.

So as I said in the military thread: please reflect on your goals on this board and whether they can be achieved in the way you try to do it now, before putting the blame on everyone else.

[N C More]

Is there no adult supervision on this forum?

Certainly, we're all watching intently.

BTW, I do not buy into the concept of chronological age being equal to emotional, or intellectual maturity. I know some 20 year olds who are very mature, well educated, and (you guessed it) capable of critical thinking. I also know my husband's Aunt, a lady of considerable years, who is quite credulous and immature.

Oh, and just for the record I'm 54 years old. I consider myself to be an adult (at least most of the time).

[Tinaa]

Is there no adult supervision on this forum?

Do I take this as an ad hom against the mods in general or me in particular?

Being a pretty decent parent and a reasonably mature adult, the only behavior I've seen here that appeared out of line has been yours. You accuse the whole board of being unable to use critical thinking. Perhaps you should change your wording so that you do not insult your peers in your posts. Many people here are quite well educated and resent being told they are not rational.

[N C More]

Ok, here's a question to apply some of that critical thinking to: Is discussion and rational analysis part of "Critical Thinking"?

Now, I ask this question due to the lack of productive discussion that I've seen over and over again (which is a real clue as to why threads are frequently hyjacked). Take a look at the last page of this thread (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=35512&page=2).

Nereid attempts to invoke discussion here:

Oh I read the book (well, at least one of them), and was mightily confused (some of my confusion has been spelled out here).

As you came here, with a thread entitled "Normal Science", and posted lots of quotes from Kuhn, I was kinda hoping you'd be able to help reduce my confusion.

One conclusion from my reading of Kuhn: I'm just thick, and have little appreciation for how masterful Kuhn's analysis of what science is *really* about.

There are other possible conclusions, I'm sure

I even point out that a great deal of Kuhn stikes me as being logically fallacious:

You mean like Kuhn's reasoning is "begging the question" a bit? Then again, I'm no philosopher!

Respone? None.

[coberst]

A lone rider trying to push a herd of reason through the badlands is a fool

[N C More]

So, is the BAUT bulletin board "the badlands", or does this analogy apply to all scientific reasoning, in general?... Just attempting to apply some Critical Thinking here.

[Moose]

It might help if you discuss with us, not at us. That, and realize that critical thinking doesn't mean "agree with everything I just said".

This is an astronomy/science board, and one with a sharply sceptical bent. We know exactly what critical thinking means and how to apply it. Nobody, but nobody gets a free ride here. And as a self-proclaimed 'critical thinker', you should understand that.

You need to realize that the pedestal you've placed yourself on is actually a 'high horse'. Get off it before you tumble off, put away your copy/paste key, and actually participate.

[Nicolas]

A lone rider trying to push a herd of reason through the badlands is a fool

There is a lot of reasoning behind us not accepting your claims at face value.

But apparently your massive interest in philosphy and psychology has not gotten you to the point to realize that no philosophical or psychological theory is a solid truth, but a thesis open to discussion.

[Gillianren]

Again, your ideas have been directly contradicted by reality sometimes, and you never respond to it. Perhaps you ought to think critically about that for a while. Maybe you should even try posting in threads you don't start. Lots of critical thinking in ATM and Conspiracy Theories, albeit not from every participant.

[Nicolas]

God point Gillianren. It might be that Coberst's bias on the subjects he raises is due to the same reason he has a skewed vision of this board: he limits himself to small areas of the whole. (and then there are other reasons as well, already brought to attention).

[Maksutov]

A lone rider trying to push a herd of reason through the badlands is a foolMaybe you'd get better results if you led by example instead of pushing with didactic dissertations.

If you don't understand the above, next time you have spaghetti, try moving a strand by pushing on one end. Then try moving it by leading it, i.e., pulling it on the other end.

[Fram]

A lone rider trying to push a herd of reason through the badlands is a fool

Umm, I quite like this analogy. The BAUT as a herd of reason, some unnamed fool coming along to try to push us through the badlands, and the herd being unwilling to leave the green pastures for the badlands without a good reason for doing so or for trusting the lone rider... Yep, very similar to this thread.

[N C More]

Quote:
Originally Posted by coberst
A lone rider trying to push a herd of reason through the badlands is a fool


Umm, I quite like this analogy. The BAUT as a herd of reason, some unnamed fool coming along to try to push us through the badlands, and the herd being unwilling to leave the green pastures for the badlands without a good reason for doing so or for trusting the lone rider... Yep, very similar to this thread.

Gee Fram, now that you put this interpretation on the analogy...I like it too!

However, I'm pretty sure this is not the interpretation coberst intended.