John:
Yes -- I'm all for moving towards an understanding of the "Implicate Order" but, alas, I seriously doubt that Bohm &al will help us much to get there (because of the *paradigm* that shaped those thoughts) . . . <g>
We are convinced that a deep-dive on Aristotle is the best way-to-go and that trying to "correct" all the mistakes that have been made over the past 400+ years (i.e. since PRINT wiped out any careful understanding of Aristotle) is probably going to be a waste of time (unless fighting with everyone is entertaining for you).
We are already in a *very* new paradigm (as structured by psycho-technological environments) -- coming at the right time since the "incoherence" of the last one is becoming deafening -- so by-all-means let's try to work this through . . . !!
Mark
P.S. I actually know Trivers, somewhat, and, yes, his reputation of being an SOB is well deserved.
Quoting JOHN TORDAY <[log in to unmask]>:
Mark, I'm going out of sequence to comment on the links you posted
regarding John Horgan's 'end of science' essay, etc. I am laying claim to
the idea that evolution can be understood ontologically and
epistemologically when it is seen mechanistically from its origins, moving
forward developmentally and phylogenetically. When looked at that way, many
aspects of biology become understandable that are currently dogma. The
point I am trying to make is that if our system of logic is founded on a
false perspective on reality, as David Bohm said in Wholeness and the
Implicate Order, then perhaps that's why the physics isn't connecting to
the reality. Consider the change in human thought after the acceptance of
Heliocentrism. In my reduction and re-assembly of evolutionary biology I
have come to the realization that life began as an ambiguity- free energy
within the cell being negative (Schrodinger) and positive outside of the
cell. The way in which we have coped with that ambiguity up until now is
through deception of self and others (Robert Trivers, The Folly of Fools).
Perhaps the time has come to consider a different paradigm in order to move
away from cognitive dissonance and toward the Implicate Order, i.e. the
true nature of Nature.
On Tue, Jul 3, 2018 at 5:48 AM, Mark Stahlman <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:
https://urldefense.proofpoint.ToKers:
"Science" (as we know it) is a *revolutionary* process, that changes its
demeanor based on the PARADIGM in which we are living -- which is to say,
after Thomas Kuhn's 1962 "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions," it
cannot adopt anything like a single "universal" attitude.
Aristotle's science was not the same as Newton's and that wasn't the same
as Einstein's and so on. As a result, one period's "science" will appear
to be "anti-science" in another. (Yes, as you might recall, my father was
a historian of science and I'm trained as a molecular biologist, so I have
spent some time thinking about this topic.)
Since the founding of the Royal Society of London in 1660 (but not
institutionalized before that), "science" has presented itself as the
rejection of "metaphysics" -- which, as the name implies, was a science
that professed to be "meta" (an important topic for this list) the
lower-level study of mere "physics." Yes, I have read the archives and
noted that Gregg and John have already said a few words about all this.
Of course, that rejection of "metaphysics" is just a posture, since it is
impossible to actually eliminate what lies underneath/behind whatever
science claims itself to be (in any particular paradigm). This fake effort
to eliminate what can't be eliminated (termed the "disenchantment of the
world" by Max Weber in his 1917 "Science as a Vocation" lecture) has
resulted in the current collapse of what many take to be the foundation of
"modern" (not to be confused with "postmodern") science -- physics.
Recently a fellow I know who writes a blog for Scientific American, John
Horgan (who works at the Stevens Institute of Technology, in Hoboken, NJ,
where he teaches "creative writing"), wrote a fascinating article titled
"How Physics Lost Its Way" that I recommend.
com/v2/url?u=https-3A__blogs.s
cientificamerican.com_cross-2Dcheck_how-2Dphysics-2Dlost-2Di This, in turn, is based on Sabine Hossenfelder's brand-new "Lost in Math:
ts-2Dway_&d=DwIDaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_
5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=2_ Z-WnBP9FFDe-
vvHWZ7os7vDbHzDx_mSj8C3g3HDGw&s=tJovVyVXkFjHvksbLzLaupM_sEzy
5Bl1ZnrDpw3Uado&e=
How Beauty Leads Physics Astray," that I also recommend . . . <g>
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.ama
zon.com_Lost-2DMath-2DBeauty-2DPhysics-2DAstray_dp_ I will leave the topic of "why" we go through these series of *paradigms*
0465094252&d=DwIDaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_
5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=2_ Z-WnBP9FFDe-
vvHWZ7os7vDbHzDx_mSj8C3g3HDGw&s=Sy_8SfKNt-96VAH9g-bqUH43HeNr
NdsL3qguXzur03I&e=
-- each one revolutionizing "science" anew -- until Gregg returns from
vacation but perhaps another important book will stimulate some thinking on
the matter. This is the crucial topic of *causality*, which, as it turns
out, requires metaphysics.
Judea Pearl's "The Book of Why: The New Science of Cause and Effect" is an
attempt by a leading Artificial Intelligence researcher (and the "inventor"
of Bayesian networks) to put a band-aid on the longstanding problem of
*causality* in the West, going back to the Royal Society and its
"rejection" (which, btw, does not exist in the same way in the East).
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.ama
zon.com_Book-2DWhy-2DScience-2DCause-2DEffect_dp_046509760X Have fun on your 4th of July (btw, I'll be kayaking off Long Beach Island
&d=DwIDaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HP
o1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=2_Z-WnBP9FFDe-
vvHWZ7os7vDbHzDx_mSj8C3g3HDGw&s=JMLEyDn5rIPMcpQqTt3ee_KL7e0H
BRXLSfTBSffXGsw&e=
if anyone else is out that way) . . . !!
Mark
P.S. For those trying to get ahead-of-the-curve, you might have noticed
that my Center bases much of its work on the insights of Marshall McLuhan.
His last book was published posthumously with the title "The Laws of Media:
The New Science," although, for many years, that title and subtitle were
reversed, echoing the title of Giambattista Vico's 1725 "Scienza Nuova."
Vico was writing in opposition to the "new science" of his day (i.e. Newton
&al), making him, yet-another "anti-scientist" as things ultimately turned
out.
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__en.wiki
pedia.org_wiki_The-5FNew-5FScience&d=DwIDaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCg
mb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-
UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=2_Z-WnBP9FFDe-vvHWZ7os7vDbHzDx _mSj8C3g3HDGw&
s=MrJZ8RVJF7yWFrLIr5fsFwVMctnk8igjtQsAX5PEezk&e=
Quoting JOHN TORDAY <[log in to unmask]>:
Dear Waldemar and ToKers, thank you Waldemar for acknowledging the problem
I have highlighted with respect to recognizing the difference between
information and knowledge, a distinction which seems to be overlooked.
What I had neglected to mention in this thread of ideas with regard to the
distinction between information and knowledge is that the Informaticists
think that if you haven't come up with the 'answer' to the problem, you
only need more data! That may work in a finite set, like the parts of the
Challenger, since Informatics was developed by NASA, but it is inadequate
for biologically-related problems like psychology and medicine; we know
that in biology the whole is not equal to the sum of its parts. As Jaron
Lanier, a Silicon Valley guru tells us, "You are not a gadget". In order
to
understand the ever-increasing data in such fields of biology we need to
'know' how physiology actually works in order to effectively interpret and
utilize information. Learning to think critically to solve problems is
essential.
On Mon, Jul 2, 2018 at 11:47 AM, [log in to unmask] <
[log in to unmask]> wrote:
Dear Friends:
I am very much "in tune" with John’s comment about conflating information
and knowledge.
John, your comments remind me very much of how, for instance, data is (or
may be) eventually “transformed” into information, knowledge, wisdom, or
vision:
I am not aware of any computer program which is able to add the elements
apparently required for each transformation (with the caveat that the is
a
LOT about computers and their programs of which I am not aware).
It appears that the following are uniquely provided by humans:
1. Processing & relationship discovery.
2. Reasoning & the discovery of patterns.
3. The application of principles, empathy, and beliefs.
4. The application of values and desire.
5. The application of commitment.
The first two and part of #3 suggest the application of cognitive
functions.
Items 2, 3, and 4 suggest the involvement of affective functions.
Item 5 suggests the use of conative functions.
Requiring cognitive, affective, and conative functions suggests the
application of multiple connectomes, likely in a recursive manner.
While the first two part of the above list may be assisted by computers,
the latter three seem to be beyond the domain of computers.
Probably, most “normal” persons have the innate ability to do these
tasks,
but John’s experience suggests that the ability to apply all of the above
requires considerable education and/or experience.
Hence, the apparently general failure to apprehend the significant
differences between D, I, K, W & V?
Best regards,
Waldemar
*Waldemar A Schmidt, PhD, MD*
(Perseveret et Percipiunt)
503.631.8044
*Strive not to be a success, but rather to be of value.* (A Einstein)
On Jun 25, 2018, at 12:48 PM, JOHN TORDAY <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
If you can tolerate a little more anecdotal experience from back in the
20th Century, I was raised in a multilingual home (my first language is
not
english) in a multiethnic community in New York City and suburbs
beginning
in the 1950s. I was encouraged to think and be curious in order to
assimilate. Although that was not encouraged educationally until graduate
school, I was prepared for the education I received at McGill University
in
Experimental Medicine, being taught by scientists who were actively
engaged
in research, prime among them Hans Selye, the physiologist who coined the
term 'stress'. He and his colleagues on faculty, who had discovered a
number of hormones- cortisol, aldosterone, prolactin- taught us to
problem
solve in the way they had experienced it first hand in the laboratory,
above all else, that failure meant you hadn't formulated the hypothesis
correctly. Those were life lessons that I have carried throughout my
research career. My son, a well-recognized American novelist does much
the
same research, only without having to generate data. When we were looking
for schools for my son to attend back in 2000 the school representatives
were advocating for a liberal education, given that in the future people
would have multiple jobs over the course of their careers, and that a
liberal education was good preparation for such a situation.......does
that
no longer apply due to the escalation of tuition?
On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 12:11 PM, Joseph Michalski <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:
Thanks John. I fully agree with your assessment. No question that the
<https://urldefense.proofpointnarrative has shifted over time to reducing the value of higher
education
to the overarching metric of earnings/jobs. Certainly a few students
still
remain who are curiosity-driven, across the many sciences and
humanities.
But these are more the exceptions than the rule. And honestly, I cannot
remember the last time I spoke with a parent who framed the issues in
any
other way apart from: "What can my kid actually *do *with this degree?
This is costing us a *lot* of money!" Finally, our government ministries
consistently stress more instrumental learning outcomes, as well as the
employment-related metrics. Most faculty members resist, but it has been
increasingly difficult to stem the tide in recent years.
Best, -joe
Dr. Joseph H. Michalski
Associate Academic Dean
King’s University College at Western University
266 Epworth Avenue.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__maps .
google.com_-3Fq-3D266-2BEpworth-2BAvenue-2B-250D-
250A-2BLondon-2C-2BOntario-2C-2BCanada-2B-2BN6A-2B2M3-
26entry-3Dgmail-26source-3Dg&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vC
I4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYB
gjO2gOz4-A&m=do8qGY5L8wCPzg90ijJs7PYMEw91kO9D8dlnwmfrJWc&s=
Ls55Fxb--I1xu0iIsAwe-CMIjt09lHFOmq32QE2xEac&e=>
London, Ontario, Canada
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__maps .
google.com_-3Fq-3D266-2BEpworth-2BAvenue-2B-250D-
250A-2BLondon-2C-2BOntario-2C-2BCanada-2B-2BN6A-2B2M3-
26entry-3Dgmail-26source-3Dg&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vC
I4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYB
gjO2gOz4-A&m=do8qGY5L8wCPzg90ijJs7PYMEw91kO9D8dlnwmfrJWc&s=
Ls55Fxb--I1xu0iIsAwe-CMIjt09lHFOmq32QE2xEac&e=>
N6A 2M3
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__maps .
google.com_-3Fq-3D266-2BEpworth-2BAvenue-2B-250D-
250A-2BLondon-2C-2BOntario-2C-2BCanada-2B-2BN6A-2B2M3-
26entry-3Dgmail-26source-3Dg&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vC
I4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYB
gjO2gOz4-A&m=do8qGY5L8wCPzg90ijJs7PYMEw91kO9D8dlnwmfrJWc&s=
Ls55Fxb--I1xu0iIsAwe-CMIjt09lHFOmq32QE2xEac&e=>
<https://urldefense.proofpointTel: (519) 433-3491, ext. 4439
Fax: (519) 433-0353
Email: [log in to unmask]
______________________
*ei*π + 1 = 0
------------------------------
*From:* tree of knowledge system discussion <
[log in to unmask]> on behalf of JOHN TORDAY <
[log in to unmask]>
*Sent:* Monday, June 25, 2018 2:02 PM
*To:* [log in to unmask]
*Subject:* Re: The Science of Anti-Scientific Thinking
OK, I have read the Scientific American article in the interim. I find
the observations of interest, but as with my comment about the
conflation
of Information and Knowledge, the degradation of the educational
mission is
equally troublesome to me......for example, in the run-up to the 2016
Presidential election Bernie Sanders was advocating for free higher
education. The discussion of that issue revolved around equating
education
with earnings, without any mention of the quality of life for those with
advanced educations. Like so many aspects of society, we are undermining
the educational mission in the name of profit as yet another bottom line
enterprise. Given that, why would society put value in the generation of
scientific evidence, given that the process is misunderstood, if it is
understood at all? Teaching to the test for the sake of expediency
doesn't
give the student an appreciation of the process so he/she can fully
understand the significance of the content, or lack thereof. We are not
teaching our students to think and problem solve, we are teaching them
to
pass exams. When social 'values' are only measured in $ and cents, this
is
the result.
On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 8:42 AM, JOHN TORDAY <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
Dear Joe and ToKers, your email and the SA article are great talking
points for us to consider. However I think that there's an overriding
problem due to the tendency to equate Information and Knowledge. This
has
resulted from both the "Question Authority" movement and the 'Arab
Spring'
of technology leveling institutions of society, including
science.....discusss?
On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 8:16 AM, Joseph Michalski <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:
Dear Colleagues:
Please see the attached article from my newly arrived July 2018 issue
of *Scientific
American*. The three main hurdles to clear scientific thinking they've
identified are: 1) shortcuts to deal with cognitive overload; 2) the
well-know issue of confirmation bias; and 3) social goals (or what we
refer
to as influence as part of Gregg's J-I-I argument). I share the article
for
a few reasons.
First, it's great to see a broad swath of the academic community (at
least the psychologists and the research cited) largely reaching similar
conclusions about cognitive biases - and how the work aligns with much
of
Gregg's framing and what I've been reading of others on our list-serv.
Gregg and I have attempted to joke, with some irony, that we hope we're
not
just creating our own "echo chambers" and exercising our own
"confirmation
biases" by agreeing too much. Every group needs the outliers to help
keep
us honest!
Second, I've mentioned before (using my own siblings in part as
exemplars) the problem of discussing issues and struggling to be
fair-minded, 'objective,' and receptive to alternative viewpoints, new
info, etc. And yet the academy itself has been increasingly under
attack in
recent years as "liberal re-education camps" and "close-minded" by not
embracing alternative viewpoints or shutting down speakers, especially
on
the right-wing end of the political spectrum, who challenge "liberal
orthodoxy" or may be skeptical of any claims-making from university
professors -- scientific or otherwise. Nancy commented in part on this
issue a couple of weeks ago in a quite insightful way. I'm thinking that
the issue is actually much broader in the sense that these issues affect
all of us, both inside and outside of academia. It's not simply a
matter of
any of us being "experts" in our fields or far more knowledgeable about
the
"facts" and "scientific evidence" in regard to our specialties. All
knowledge has a relational component too, i.e., depends upon the social
location of the actors relative to each other in combination with the
cultural sources of justification systems invoked. This explains in
large
measure, in my view, the rise of the "alternative facts" and "fake news"
critiques that have gained such popularity.
Finally, note too the fact that our researches across the many fields
within the academy -- but especially in the social sciences and
humanities
-- gradually have chipped away or at least provided insights about the
standard forms of knowledge and justification systems that have helped
certain groups to maintain their power and privilege for many
generations
(and across cultures). If I show you the lead article from the
well-respected journal *Criminology* last month (which confirms
something I've hypothesized about for years) showing the adverse
effects of
early childhood exposure to lead for healthy brain development and some
adverse behavioral outcomes, then how does one "receive" and "interpret"
that information? What are the implications for even something as basic
as
"equality of opportunity" for youngsters who grow up with high lead
exposure in their environments, to say nothing of the many other factors
that affect their "life chances" simply because they grow up in a
certain
neighborhood or attended woefully under-resourced schools or a thousand
other factors beyond their control? Back to the article and the various
mechanisms that we use to simplify the whole darn thing. I'm thinking a
la
Colonel Jessup's famous quote in *A Few Good Men*: "You can't handle the
truth!" Can any of us? 😎 Best regards, -Joe
Dr. Joseph H. Michalski
Associate Academic Dean
King’s University College at Western University
266 Epworth Avenue.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__maps .
google.com_-3Fq-3D266-2BEpworth-2BAvenue-2B-250D-
250A-2BLondon-2C-2BOntario-2C-2BCanada-2B-2BN6A-2B2M3-
26entry-3Dgmail-26source-3Dg&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vC
I4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYB
gjO2gOz4-A&m=do8qGY5L8wCPzg90ijJs7PYMEw91kO9D8dlnwmfrJWc&s=
Ls55Fxb--I1xu0iIsAwe-CMIjt09lHFOmq32QE2xEac&e=>
London, Ontario, Canada
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__maps .
google.com_-3Fq-3D266-2BEpworth-2BAvenue-2B-250D-
250A-2BLondon-2C-2BOntario-2C-2BCanada-2B-2BN6A-2B2M3-
26entry-3Dgmail-26source-3Dg&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vC
I4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYB
gjO2gOz4-A&m=do8qGY5L8wCPzg90ijJs7PYMEw91kO9D8dlnwmfrJWc&s=
Ls55Fxb--I1xu0iIsAwe-CMIjt09lHFOmq32QE2xEac&e=>
N6A 2M3
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__maps .
google.com_-3Fq-3D266-2BEpworth-2BAvenue-2B-250D-
250A-2BLondon-2C-2BOntario-2C-2BCanada-2B-2BN6A-2B2M3-
26entry-3Dgmail-26source-3Dg&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vC
I4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYB
gjO2gOz4-A&m=do8qGY5L8wCPzg90ijJs7PYMEw91kO9D8dlnwmfrJWc&s=
Ls55Fxb--I1xu0iIsAwe-CMIjt09lHFOmq32QE2xEac&e=>
Tel: (519) 433-3491, ext. 4439
Fax: (519) 433-0353
Email: [log in to unmask]
______________________
*ei*π + 1 = 0
############################
To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to:
mailto:TOK-SOCIETY-L-SIGNOFF-R[log in to unmask] or click the
following link: http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bi
n/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1
############################
To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to:
mailto:TOK-SOCIETY-L-SIGNOFF-R[log in to unmask] or click the
following link: http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bi
n/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1
############################
To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to:
mailto:TOK-SOCIETY-L-SIGNOFF-R[log in to unmask] or click the
following link: http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bi
n/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1
############################
To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to:
mailto:TOK-SOCIETY-L-SIGNOFF-R[log in to unmask] or click the
following link: http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bi
n/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=
1
############################
To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to:
mailto:TOK-SOCIETY-L-SIGNOFF-R[log in to unmask] or click the
following link: http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bi
n/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=
1
############################
To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list:
write to: mailto:TOK-SOCIETY-L-SIGNOFF-R[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:TOK-SOCIETY-L-SIGNOFF-R[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:TOK-SOCIETY-L-SIGNOFF-R[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:TOK-SOCIETY-L-SIGNOFF-R[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