General social knowledge refers to the folk systems of justification that represent the landscape of the Person-Culture plane of existence at various levels of analysis and periods in history.
Given that, the science versus social knowledge dilemma of the Enlightenment Gap has several features.
Here are three.
First, what is a âscientific worldviewâ? Or, does science offer us a large scale justification system for making sense of the world?
There are many varied answers to this. The ToK System shows that the answer can be yes if we solve the problem of psychology, the four planes of existence linked via four joint points. Which, of course, is a completely revolutionary view
of science that many, many scientists and philosophers have looked at and called âunsurprisingâ. Most science people focus on method and epistemology as the binding features of science. But that leaves one cold, and if it was really correct, then the strong
postmodernists are basically right.
Second, if (1) is at least somewhat accurate, what are the truth-into-authority claims that science can make?
As I highlight in the final chapter in A New Unified Theory of Psychology with the example of fundamentalist Christianity, this is an unresolved problem in modernist society (consider the question: Is it ok for school children to not believe
in (a) evolution or (b) the earth is spherical?). TOK Society member Frank Ambrosio makes the case focusing on the more sophisticated angles of philosophy in the excellent attached pdf, Measuring the Horizon.
Third, to Chanceâs point (and a point Cadell Last makes powerfully), science is clearly not the whole picture as is fails miserably at the level of the subjective experience of being and morality. So, how do we connect/use science to orient
toward wisdom given how pathetic it is as a life philosophy and how so many scientists are blind to this fact?
Lots of different angles to take on this question. In UTOK, the iQuad-into-Garden philosophy gives a frame for how scientific knowledge can be transformed into âwisdom energyâ.
Best,
G
From: tree of knowledge system discussion <[log in to unmask]>
On Behalf Of Bradley H. Werrell, D.O.
Sent: Tuesday, December 15, 2020 1:28 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: TOK Question re "Enlightenment Gap"
CAUTION:
This email originated from outside of JMU. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Thanks Gregg, for the helpful answer.
I am left wondering, however, how do you define "social knowledge?"
Bradley H. Werrell, D.O. - This email is private and copyrighted by the author.
On Tuesday, December 15, 2020, 09:34:27 AM MST, Henriques, Gregg - henriqgx <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
Thanks, Bradley. Yes, that is in the ballpark, although there is more to it. The Enlightenment Gap features fairly prominently in my in-progress
book, The Problem of Psychology and Its Solution.
Here is a blog that defines what I mean by it. There are two facets of the Enlightenment Gap that are important to keep in mind. One is the matter versus mind relation and the second is the scientific knowledge versus society/social knowledge distinction.
The former is well-known as the mind/body problem and the hard problem of consciousness and the latter is the tension between modernist and postmodernist sensibilities.
As the Enlightenment blog notes, the problem of psychology is the direct downstream consequence of the Enlightenment Gap. Indeed, in retrospect,
we can note how could it be otherwise?
Also, the problem of psychology identifies where the modernist empirical natural scientific language game runs aground. That is, it does fine with
âSTEMâ fields (i.e., physics, chemistry, and biology-into-neuroscience, as well as math that grounds their quantitative logic and engineering). However, the STEM âhard sciencesâ (meaning that there is a body of consensual knowledge) go âsoftâ in the move from
neuroscience to psychology. Why? The Enlightenment Gap.
The argument is the UTOK provides us a way to solve the problem of psychology (the most vexing aspect being the
problem of subject matter or the âbehavior-mind-mind-mindâ problem) and generate a larger theory of
MENS Knowledge that we can then
frame with the proper metamodern Wisdom-Orientation. This sets the stage for a potential shift into Enlightenment 2.0 in the 21st Century and the move from the current Age of Confusion into the Age of Clarity.
Best,
Gregg
From: tree of knowledge system discussion <[log in to unmask]>
On Behalf Of Bradley H. Werrell, D.O.
Sent: Tuesday, December 15, 2020 11:13 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: TOK Question re "Enlightenment Gap"
CAUTION:
This email originated from outside of JMU. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
I am seeking some clarification regarding the significance of "The Enlightenment Gap," as popularized on this channel.
My understanding of the term:
While the objective was well apprehended with the advent of the scientific method, and material objectivity was mastered by the project, it is the
failure of this method to account for, include, or have significant resolution and inclusion of the subjective that is the nature of this "Gap."
Is that approximately correct?
Thank you for illuminating my little corner with your clarification(s)!
Bradley H. Werrell, D.O. - This email is private and copyrighted by the author.
############################
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
############################
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
############################
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