Russ,
Oh, just that scientists appear to be one of the main violators of your self-awareness principle. Scientists tend to describe the physical world as if they are unaware that science constructs descriptive models of things far too complex to model, that might behave differently from any kind of model we know how to invent. That has us spending a disproportionate amount of time looking into our theories for the behavior of the world around us (under the streetlight for the keys lost in the alley) and letting our skills in watching physical systems atrophy.
Do you see the connection? Is it partly accurate?
Phil Henshaw
From: Russ Abbott [mailto:[hidden email]]
Sent: Monday, October 06, 2008 4:04 PM
To: [hidden email]
Cc: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Self-awareness
I'm sorry, Phil, I'm missing your point. How does your comment relate to my argument that self-awareness is a primary good and a possible way around the difficulty most people have with critical thinking?
-- RussOn Mon, Oct 6, 2008 at 12:53 PM, Phil Henshaw <[hidden email]> wrote:
Well Russ, what if a group of scientists were to acknowledge that science actually just seems to be descriptive after all..., and looking through the holes one seems able to actually see signs of a physical world after all! Than sort of 'emperor's new clothes' moment might be enough to turn everyone's attention to value of self-critical thinking wouldn't it?! ;-)
Phil
From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Russ Abbott
Sent: Sunday, October 05, 2008 10:06 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Willfull Ignorance - Satisfies NickCriteria E
On Sun, Oct 5, 2008 at 12:39 PM, glen e. p. ropella <[hidden email]> wrote:
So the first step is for each individual to accept their responsibility
to think/speak critically at every opportunity. The next step is to
package such critical thinking inside an infectious wrapper so that
it spreads across all humanity.
Yes, if it worked it would be wonderful. I'm cynical enough to doubt that it would succeed. (1) I doubt that we can find a wrapper infectious enough and (2) even if we did, I doubt that the population as a whole is capable of the level of critical thinking that we need. (That's elitism, isn't it.)
Demagoguery almost always seems to succeed. Can anything be done about that? More discouraging is that advertising is cleaned up demagoguery. And advertising will always be with us.
Just to be sure I knew what I was talking about (critical thinking?) I just looked up "demagoguery": "impassioned appeals to the prejudices and emotions of the populace."
Prejudice and emotion will always be with us -- even the least prejudiced and least a prisoner of their emotions. Besides, without emotion, we can't even make decisions. (That's clearly another discussion, but it's worth noting.)
So can we really complain about superficial prejudice and emotion when we are all subject to it at some level?
Perhaps the need is for self-awareness -- and even more for having a high regard for self-awareness -- so that one can learn about one's prejudices and emotions and stand back from them when appropriate. Can we teach that? (It helps to have good role models. Obviously we have had exactly the opposite in our current president.)
Actually, though, a high regard for self-awareness might be easier to teach than critical thinking. So perhaps there is hope. But the danger there is to fall prey to melodrama. It's not easy. I'll nominate Glen as a good role model, though. How can we make your persona more widely visible?
-- Russ
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |