I suspect that most of us are willing to agree that, broadly speaking, we have ‘fact knowledge’ and ‘relationship knowledge’. I would like to take this a step further by saying that I wish to claim that fact knowledge is mono-logical and relationship knowledge is multi-logical.
Mono-logical matters have one set of principles guiding their solution; this set of principles is often (if not always) the ‘scientific method’. Often these mono-logical matters have a paradigm–The natural sciences—normal sciences—as Thomas Kuhn labels it in “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions†move forward in a “successive transition from one paradigm to anotherâ€. 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.â€
Multi-logical problems are different in kind from mono-logical matters.
Socratic dialogue is one technique for attempting to grapple with multi-logical problems; problems that are either not pattern like or that the pattern is too complex to ascertain. Most problems that we face in our daily life are such multi-logical in nature. Simple problems that occur daily in family life are examples. Each member of the family has a different point of view with differing needs and desires. Most of the problems we constantly face are not readily solved by mathematics because they are not pattern specific and are multi-logical.
Dialogue is a technique for mutual consideration of such problems wherein solutions grow in a dialectical manner. Through dialogue each individual brings his/her point of view to the fore by proposing solutions constructed around their specific view. All participants in the dialogue come at the solution from the logic of their views. The solution builds dialectically i.e. a thesis is developed and from this thesis and a contrasting antithesis is constructed a synthesis that takes into consideration both proposals. From this a new synthesis a new thesis is developed.
When we are dealing with mono-logical problems well circumscribed by algorithms the personal biases of the subject are of small concern. In multi-logical problems, without the advantage of paradigms and algorithms, the biases of the problem solvers become a serious source of error. One important task of dialogue is to illuminate these prejudices which may be quite subtle and often out of consciousness of the participant holding them.
Our society is very good while dealing with mono-logical problems. Our society is terrible while dealing with multi-logical problems.
Do you not think that we desperately need to understand CT, which attempts to help us understand how to think about multi-logical problems? Do you not think that it is worth while for every adult to get up off their ‘intellectual couch’ and teach themselves CT?
Of course I would say your assertion would be generally accepted as a priori, but I question the teaching of one’s self in the critical thinking sphere.
As is noticeable in society, critical thinking is severely ignored, to the point of obviation for the general populace. It also has a requisite of understanding that from an individual standpoint, views, (opinions), are methodologically errant, which is a further requisite of humility, and requires a further perspective that you are accepting a logical discourse, emotionally detached.
I assert that these requisites demand an outside mentor, to observe and instruct in cases where ego and opinion intrude upon logic.
The word “individual†moved from the indivisible and collective to the divisible and distinctive. In this we see the development of an understanding of self-consciousness thus illustrating the dramatic change taking place in our developing understanding of the self as a distinct subject not just a cipher in a community. This was part of the Renaissance.
I recommend that each of us develop the hobby of an intellectual life. We could add to our regular routine the development of an invigorating intellectual life wherein we sought disinterested knowledge; knowledge that is not for the purpose of some immediate need but something that stirs our curiosity, which we seek to understand for the simple reason that we feel a need to understand a particular domain of knowledge.
it seems like the difference between mono-logic and multi-logic isnt so fundamental, but its only a matter of not agreeing on which paradigm and which set of foundational evidence should be used to make decisions. people disagree in social situations because they have different paradigms and different life experience that they are basing their opinions on.
if everyone had the same algorithms and knew what ultimate, objective knowledge should be gained by all life experience (yes, such a thing exists) then nobody would ever disagree about anything.
for instance, my algorithm is to do only those things that create the most happiness in the long run. somebody else might say that his family needs to be taken care of first, or selfish people should be allowed to infringe on happiness because freedom is intrinsically good. a difference in our foundational evidence could be that ive had a lot of fun being nice to bums in philadelphia, whereas the guy who disagrees with me got stabbed by them while giving them change.
the biases that cause all disagreements can be identified. the “correct” bias can be determined if you simply agree on the paradigm. the paradigm can be agreed on if everyone has the same foundational, experiential evidence. if everyone had experience that suggested being a good christian causes stab wounds, nobody would be christian. if everyone had experience that said charity made them happier than their turbocharged mid-life-crisis-mobile, wed live in a socialist utopia.
sorry to drag my agenda in here, but it seems appropriate. i am kind of saying your idea is simpler than it sounds, though. but its still very important. critical thinking is incredibly amazingly important and when i encounter someone who has the slightest grasp of this concept, i respect them so much. and im so annoyed by all of the people who refuse to understand that they are supposed to think about things.
“a common marvels at the uncommon; a wise man marvels at the common place”. the fact that confucious said this thousands of years ago and people still dont get it leads me to believe that they never will, and they need to be subjugated, manipulated or destroyed altogether. only in the name of greatest happiness, of course.
We are very very good at instrumental rationality–solving mono-logical puzzles. Almost all of our intellectual thought is directed that way. Very little theory is directed at the problem of solving those problems that are part of our living together.
I don’t know that I agree that there is very little theory directed towards the problems of societal living, more a case of a muddled plethora.
There is so much information strewn about regarding this subject, and the greatest majority of it being subjective; subjective to theory, field, organization/institution. There is no common ground consensus on a “better methodology”.