Dear John,
I, like you and I suspect all of us, have a strong regard for and use scientific data. It is just that I see it as necessary but not sufficient for the building of knowledge. The question is what is the piece that is missing?
It seems to me that, you and I are both trying to understand the human psyche using fairly traditional concepts, you the principles of physiology and me learning theory and child development theory. I see our thinking as similar in that we are both trying to figure out a way to put rather hard-nosed scientific data together into a meaningful narrative structure.
My question was more aimed at Gregg, who is building a model of all knowledge. In his model, the connections between the elements seem more obscure. I was wondering what his model of knowledge building is. Perhaps, I should not have used the word “intuition” — too global and too inflammatory?
Cheers,
Nancy
From: tree of knowledge system discussion <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> on behalf of JOHN TORDAY <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>>
Reply-To: tree of knowledge system discussion <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>>
Date: Tuesday, April 17, 2018 at 11:37 AM
To: "[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>" <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>>
Subject: Re: Thanks to all who made the conference a success
Dear Nancy, thank you for your email. It is important to have my suspicion of 'resistance to scientific data' validated by you as a clinical psychologist, for lack of a better way of expressing it. Just to be clear, my presentation was based on hypothesis testing science that has led me to the realization that we've gotten the means and ends of evolution backwards. Think of what I was talking about by analogy with the Periodic Table of Elements.....it's all in how the data are arranged that converts values into knowledge. So the approach I have taken offers the testing of hypotheses based on the model I presented. For example, the New Yorker article that Waldemar passed around "Are we living in virtual reality" is similar in kind to what I was trying to express about consciousness in the conventional sense as 'perception' of our surroundings and Consciousness of the Cosmos. In the article, Philip Johnson-Laird's theory that the mind is composed of models of reality is essentially what I was trying to express (see attached), But with the advantage that I offer a way of understanding how those 'models' have evolved, based on our own physiology, historically referring all the way back to the First Principles of Physiology and the Singularity/Big Bang. So if what Johnson-Laird is describing, and what I am showing the mechanism for are one and the same, which I think they are, there is opportunity for understanding the human psyche based on principles of physiology rather than theory or metaphysics, as this kind of thing is usually thought of. So with all due respect, I am not expressing intuition, I am offering a narrative based on known science, merging physiology and physics in a unified hypothesis.If you have comments, criticisms, questions please feel free. The contrast between Dave Pruit's presentation and mine is palpable.....his contrast of Black Elk and Black Holes overarches the logic that I am trying to provide, but Dave's approach taps into our intuition whereas I am dealing with the intermediary steps. I am trying as best I can to offer science that would make Dave's approach more durable/buildable/reasoned if at all possible. Best, John
On Tue, Apr 17, 2018 at 10:28 AM, Nancy Link <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
Dear Gregg,
I returned feeling upbeat and very stimulated intellectually. It was good to get out of the confines of my Toronto home office and experience the welcoming warmth of you, the other ToKers and the whole JMU community. THANK YOU!!!
One thing I have been wondering about is how you envision building knowledge within your ToK system? I think that we have strong negative reactions to scientific thought as it is currently practiced, but we may have different ways of reacting to that negative feeling. My feeling is that scientific thought has taken over too much of the dialogue. Experts use the “data shows that…”argument to silence opposition. The truth is that the data seldom show anything with absolute clarity. It is not surprising that ordinary people have given up on science and stopped listening. My solution to this problem is to try to contain science by putting it in balance with a narrative. I believe that the narrative (theory) can only be built using data. Once we have a narrative, we can use new data to refine or change the it, but without a narrative, we are at sea.
My impression of your negative reaction to the same reality is to blast through it with your strong and good intuitions about how things fit together. I like and trust your intuitions, but how do you argue to the outside world that your intuitions are better that theirs?
Nancy
From: tree of knowledge system discussion <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> on behalf of Gregg Henriques <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>>
Reply-To: tree of knowledge system discussion <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>>
Date: Monday, April 16, 2018 at 10:30 AM
To: "[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>" <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>>
Subject: Thanks to all who made the conference a success
Dear TOK Society,
I am writing to offer deep gratitude to all those who came and participated in the first ever TOK Society conference over the weekend. I thought the talks were splendid. The breadth of ideas covered was huge and yet they did seem to cohere around key themes and pointed to future directions for education, psychology and society at large. I also found the conversation on the back half of Friday to be very stimulating and demonstrated how thinking about big TOKs could illuminate powerful perspectives on real world issues.
I will be in consultation with folks about next steps. One thing I would like to consider is having folks share their powerpoints on the list and perhaps have some time devoted to reviewing the talks and engaging in some exchange about them on this list.
Thanks again to everyone.
Best,
Gregg
___________________________________________
Gregg Henriques, Ph.D.
Professor
Department of Graduate Psychology
216 Johnston Hall
MSC 7401
James Madison University
Harrisonburg, VA 22807
(540) 568-7857 (phone)
(540) 568-4747 (fax)
Be that which enhances dignity and well-being with integrity.
Check out my Theory of Knowledge blog at Psychology Today at:
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.psychologytoday.com_blog_theory-2Dknowledge&d=DwIF-g&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=FzaGIznguN3y8NSZMNd5ybrIVyxuzbKHuKduMNWv0Fc&s=ug13EcQuo2J-wokhBPTp0IcsMacTG9SbGiwVdZ1ohZ4&e=<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.psychologytoday.com_blog_theory-2Dknowledge&d=DwMF-g&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=Juk60hGu1CZhdxRJtBM7WIs6w_5lt2vuWHMjngCjLqY&s=RmWJ8gbPqrT25c6lk_wlXp7aiI0wwyVvlnjeGNCtY_I&e=>
############################
To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to: mailto:[log in to unmask]<mailto:mailto:[log in to unmask]> or click the following link: http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1
############################
To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to: mailto:[log in to unmask]<mailto:mailto:[log in to unmask]> or click the following link: http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1
############################
To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to: mailto:[log in to unmask]<mailto:mailto:[log in to unmask]> or click the following link: http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1
############################
To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list:
write to: mailto:[log in to unmask]
or click the following link:
http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1
|
