Modern (I say modern, but since Aristotle) science is largely based on memorizing arrays of facts for the sole purpose of relating your findings to someone else. There is a lot of time wasted on accuracy to the names of disease’s or names of other things where one could do something constructive with the time he has wasted.
This memorizing of facts also creates an anti-innovative mode of thinking. i.e.: Innovations may only be made when one follows ‘such and such’ rule.
A lot of time is wasted on: Does my finding fit this-and-this description?
I guess what I’m trying to say is, why waste brain power on studying subjects when concepts are what nature intended for us in the first place?
It seems humans are so concrete, ever since Aristotle, that we sacrifice the big picture… the apparent patterns, the self-evident laws, the reason behind everything of which would be much easier to discern if we were involved with a broader, more absract, simpler mode of discovery.
I believe that we should search more for patterns in nature, than for the next element, or the next planet, or anything else to add to our textbooks.
So, in all, my opinion is this: Textbook view of world= Nono
It’s much more difficult to describe it, but you can easily notice it when you read textbook and things.
That probably made no sense at all… it’s up to you now.
Ah, here’s a good way to describe it:
Patterns vs. Characteristics
Where patterns are supported by observations and the pattern is not and end in itself whereas modern science is driven by ends in themselves, i.e.: Characteristics; of behavior, of objects, etc…
memorization leads to an ability to bring together ideas, cross-referencing, so to speak. with such cross-referencing the person can then use their innovative mind to concentrating on other matters, such as the overall pattern or detailed nuances that were not recognized before.
without getting past the original idea by memorizing it sufficiently, we cannot move onto more complex ideas (the innovative side). otherwise, every generation would continuously be re-learning and re-learning the some “simple” concept.
I would have to agree with the author for the most part, the classification of the natural tendencies of any system should not be. By the generalization of the behaviour of theses systems, we happen to limit the ability to which we can understand these things. If one was too truly understand everything, then their knowledge would have no name, for they would understand knowledge itself, and therefore would be apart of what we consider knowledge to be. In my opinion however; i believe that the labelling of our discoveries is essential in order to communicate our findings, have them added to human knowledge and then improve them once it is possible to do so, through the discovery of other ideas built on what is already known. The fact that we do term these ideas simply demostrates our incompetence. But what should we expect? We are human… and like i said earlier, if we actually had a complete comprehension of the things we discuss there would be no need to call them anything, or communicate them, for there would be no purpose, as there is nothing to discuss, seeing as how we would now everything already.
How far has your education taken you in the sciences? Memorization is a minimal part of the overall process and is generally only done because it is very inefficient to look up facts everytime. That’s all.
Yeah, not meaning to be rude, but do research the topic before you open your mouth, lest faeces spill from it.
Xunzian, I do belive that there is memorization in science. Perhaps the concepts underlying the ideas that you are discussing require more understanding than memorization, or should. However the ideas themselves are referred by terms memorized through study.
“I guess what I’m trying to say is, why waste brain power on studying subjects when concepts are what nature intended for us in the first place?”
I don’t know how far concepts will get you when you are trying to read. And I certainly don’t know how far concepts will get you in trying to cure diseases, let alone understanding how things work.
Plus there was the phase, “what nature intended”. What does nature intend and how does us?
I mentioned the concepts underlying the meaning of the words that we use to identify the subject, in my original post. The words used to specify the concepts require memorization, to the extent that most of the scientific terms designated to express them are not aquired through thought alone. One realizes that any given volume of water spread over a surface at room temperature tends to dissapitate, if one was sufficiently competent, one would realize that the missing volume of water has not dissapeared, but simply changed states. However we decide to call this idea evaporation in order to communicate our knowledge. Calling this phenomena evaporation is not neccessary, if one had enough knowldege so that this property of water was very very obvious, and therefore, having also the complete understanding of all principles of science required to make this concept obvious, then it would not be neccessary to call it evaporation.
Like for example,if I were to make a statement to someone saying “i pushed the pen off the edge”, then it would be of great surprise for me to then be asked “then what happened”, i would reply by saying that it has fallen, only to be asked why it has fallen, and the area that it fell into. It is not neccessary for me to allways explain all of the obvious reasons of why the object that fell off the ledge did so, and what happened to it consequent to its fall.
Going back, I mean to say that the generalization of concepts through the use of terms, that are otherwise obvious, relative to having all knowledge are not neccessary, and requires that one whom either understands the concepts, or does not, be made to restrict themselves to addressing them through designated language, even though it makes no difference to the actual idea. Though the naming of the concepts are made to simplify the ideas for our use so that we can understand them further.
Overall, Nature undertands itself, it did not intend for humans to understand it completely nor are we ever going to be able to comprehend this concept in this life time or the next.
I don’t think memorization is really the issue here, I would think it is categorization, of which Aristotle is indeed a prime example. If we define a category called “evaporation”, we can better see the similarity between water evaporating off a table and some other substance evaporating when it is heated, for example. Categorization is one of the building blocks of science because it allows us to generalize and thus “understand”, although I think it is evident that the price for this understanding is that we do lose some information (because all categorizations are incomplete).
Someone mentioned patterns, this made me think of Wolfram’s book A New Kind of Science, I’ve only read reviews of it but it seems to contain some interesting criticisms of modern scientific methods, written by a very well renowned physicist.
This book seems to be potentially interesting, it seems suffice to warrant my time. Thank you Del. But in regards what you mentioned about evaporation being a categorization, I agree, But what im trying to say, is that you have to learn the term. Especially in Biology, they are just the names that we have designated to creatures, which have really no name. But over all this memorization doesnt actually mean much.
Having the certificate in a respected field holds us accountable to have the discipline of sharing the views which were discovered by hard work in that area. Science is merely religion with the important exception that work remains questionable, if still somewhat static.
Memorizing facts is important. But institutions in general take for granted the powerful learning that takes place when humans debate or try to teach others even as a sophomore.
Doesn’t the same phenomenon occur in any discipline, including philosophy?
It’s called “institutionalizationâ€.
It happens when a discipline acquires popular sanction and becomes established and taught in particular ways in other acceptable institutions, such as schools.
Institutions which support each other in a web of social/cultural harmony.
A “Matrix”, if you will.
Then, even philosophy, becomes stringent.
It begins looking inwards and backwards rather than outwards and forwards.
Then the mind thinks only by looking at what has already been thought – not merely being influenced (since all minds are influenced to some degree by family, culture and mentors) but becoming mouthpieces for past beliefs and positions, rehashing and reinterpreting and debating what was meant by this or that holy, authority or by this or that holy scripture.
Then debate becomes a conflict not of opposing world interpretations or world views but a conflict between opposing interpretations of interpretations of the world.
We see this more clearly in Biblical studies, where the authority and the reliability of the source are taken for granted and all that remains is to debate over what is meant and who more precisely understands and represents the spirit of the document.
One is said to be talking philosophically only when he uses established catch words or continuously discusses another’s opinions on reality (an authority’s or a specialist or a holy figure).
Each mind places itself within a school of thought.
Then the institutionalization mimics religion – religion also being an institutionalization of spirituality (fear and hope).
Philosophical discourse becomes academic when all that is discussed is a book on reality, with a few personal references included, and not reality directly, with some references to another’s perspective – whether living or dead.
Thinking becomes institutionalized when it cannot express itself unless it refers to particular common focal points (in essence language is a form of institutionalized communication) using the “appropriate†terms and never speaking about personal experience but only through established, commonly acceptable experience.
There are degrees of institutionalization and man, being a social creature, cannot totally escape it since social behavior inevitably results in the institutionalization of relationships and interactions creating culture.
In its extreme form institutionalized thinking, as is found in science and philosophy, becomes recognizable when it cannot function unless it refers to another’s opinion of the human condition or of ‘reality’ with personal references being conspicuously absent from any discourse and when certain ‘truths’ are taken for granted.
The mind, in essence, hides behind established positions and perspectives, labeling itself in broad already existing colors and talking in stringent, traditional, ritualistic form, so as to escape the burden of being responsible for one’s own opinions and perceptions.
It says, for example: “I am liberal.†or “I am conservative.†Casting its opinions upon the shoulders of others and remaining ambiguous enough so as to escape being proven wrong or lacking understanding.
Though there’s something left to argue the opposition. I suppose I’d call what we’re discussing Meta-truth. Meta-truth can blind us to reality and appear quite useless, at the same time later accomplish incredible feats such as today’s accuracy of mathematics.
Meta-truth has hits and misses. I believe most religion is a clear example of ancient meta-truth gone wrong. People can no longer debate wheather this is “the word of God” because they’re too busy with what the word actually means or implies.
I don’t think there’s a relevant fallacy, and there should be. Something like “overmeta-ism” (well, not so cheesy sounding). It would go something like: “Not of distorting the truth, per se, but rendering the ground of debate so that truth becomes irrelevant and the fallacy makers work desparately to find answers that offer little effective results.”
