|
Post by hollandr on Feb 14, 2008 21:22:10 GMT
Definition and deduction constitute a reasonable (rational) approach to knowledge
But is reasonableness (rationality) always an effective approach to reality?
Are there preconditions before rationality might be the primary means for uncovering reality?
For example does the definition and deduction process require that most of the relevant knowledge is available?
Are there situations in which lack of information results in a rational process clouding reality?
What alternative learning strategies might be more effective in a low knowledge situation?
Are there other preconditions for rationality that when missing might require an alternative strategy?
Cheers
Russell
|
|
|
Post by maat on Feb 14, 2008 22:18:35 GMT
Are there situations in which lack of information results in a rational process clouding reality? Like - when you're dead, you're dead!? Maat
|
|
|
Post by maat on Feb 14, 2008 22:21:04 GMT
What alternative learning strategies might be more effective in a low knowledge situation? Allegories and symbols ;D Parables.
|
|
|
Post by hollandr on Feb 14, 2008 23:13:57 GMT
>Allegories and symbols ;D Parables.
That is certainly one strategy
Another might be story telling. I seem to recall Charles Dickens commenting that he was quite surprised at what some of his characters did.
And Bernard Cornwell who wrote the Sharpe series expresses similar surprise that Sharpe goes to live in France
Hence if stories are properly structured they might have a life of their own that may tell us useful things
Dion Fortune records that through writing The Sea Priestess she discovered obscure lore previously unknown. (I suspect that she is referring to the mixtures of wood used in fires to invoke particular entities or induce perceptions)
Cheers
Russell
|
|
Tamrin
Member
Nosce te ipsum
Posts: 3,586
|
Post by Tamrin on Feb 15, 2008 21:41:49 GMT
When speaking in parables, do so—Likewise, when speaking of facts. Always know what you are doing and let it be known.
|
|
Tamrin
Member
Nosce te ipsum
Posts: 3,586
|
Post by Tamrin on Feb 15, 2008 21:51:07 GMT
But is reasonableness (rationality) always an effective approach to reality? If you are suggesting otherwise, I look forward to your REASONS for doing so. Epistemology
|
|
Tamrin
Member
Nosce te ipsum
Posts: 3,586
|
Post by Tamrin on Feb 15, 2008 22:02:24 GMT
Among mutually inconsistent theories, I do not give equal credence to those advocated by tin-foil hat types, nor indeed to the delusions of those who experience more extreme psychoses.
|
|
|
Post by maximus on Feb 15, 2008 22:32:46 GMT
But is reasonableness (rationality) always an effective approach to reality? If you are suggesting otherwise, I looking forward to your REASONS for doing so. EpistemologyI would say that rationality is the only method by which to approach reality. The words reality and rational come from the same root. Anything else is likely delusion.
|
|
|
Post by hollandr on Feb 15, 2008 22:33:49 GMT
>nor indeed to the delusions of those who experience more extreme psychoses.
Philip
This thread is not an attack upon you.
The matter of when rationality is the best strategy is of interest to all who are faced with the unknown and equally to those who are faced with symbol and parable
And of course there are well known accounts of great scientists who made the conceptual breakthrough in a dream
Kekule is one example: having wrestled with the structure of benzene for a long time he dreamed of a snake with its tail in its mouth (straight out of the Mysteries) and upon awakening guessed that benzene was a ring structure. And so it is.
Cheers
Russell
|
|
|
Post by maximus on Feb 15, 2008 22:36:55 GMT
That the breakthrough came in a dream is likely due to the subconsious sifting through the various pieces of information, and assembling them in a cogent way. The scientist had the answer all along, but the waking mind interfered with the realisation.
|
|
|
Post by hollandr on Feb 15, 2008 22:38:19 GMT
> The scientist had the answer all along
Is there any way of testing that proposition?
I think of Einstein who dreamed of what it was like to travel down a sunbeam and developed Special Relativity from that experience
I am not sure I could fabricate that experience even now after his account and theory
|
|
Tamrin
Member
Nosce te ipsum
Posts: 3,586
|
Post by Tamrin on Feb 15, 2008 22:50:54 GMT
This thread is not an attack upon you. I have not suggested it was. Kekule is one example: having wrestled with the structure of benzene for a long time he dreamed of a snake with its tail in its mouth (straight out of the Mysteries) and upon awakening guessed that benzene was a ring structure. Inspiration is one thing—Explanation another.
|
|
|
Post by hollandr on Feb 15, 2008 22:54:17 GMT
>Inspiration is one thing—Explanation another.
Quite so. It is a matter of getting them in the right order.
So there you have demonstrated another precondition for rationality
Cheers
Russell
|
|
|
Post by maximus on Feb 15, 2008 23:06:01 GMT
The rational examination of the data arrived at through experimentation found the solution, the subconscious mind records and remembers everything we see, hear, smell, taste, and feel. The subconscious communicates in symbols, and, while the conscious mind is stilled, the subconcious assembles and collates the various disjoined bits of information, and we have an insightful dream. The same happens during meditation.
This is how the mind works, as far as we have been able to determine. Are there instances of paranormal activity form the human mind? Ther appears to be evidence that this is so. But, that being said, we should not automatically ascribe great inspiration or insight to paranormal or supernatural means.
Science to a caveman would appear as magic. The functions of our brain are not fully understood, nor measurable by current science. This does not nesessarily mean that there is a divine agent responsible.
|
|
Tamrin
Member
Nosce te ipsum
Posts: 3,586
|
Post by Tamrin on Feb 15, 2008 23:17:17 GMT
Quite so. It is a matter of getting them in the right order. Not quite. In its purest form, one is ineffable—The other communicable.
Reason is the means by which we can explain—both to ourselves and others. xXx You can wait for inspiration till the cows come home. Just what is it about procrastination that attracts beef?Flacco, 1986
|
|
|
Post by sniffles on Feb 16, 2008 1:46:49 GMT
there is a limit to rationality; don't forget Reason's sidekicks: Intuition and Common Sense.
|
|
|
Post by hollandr on Feb 16, 2008 3:34:25 GMT
Sniffles
You raise an interesting issue: common sense
Common sense appears to be a mental faculty but it is labeled as a sense. Thus we might ask if there are some mental aspects that are sensory (experiential) rather than procedural (deductive or inductive)
And while we might teach deduction and to a lesser extent, induction, there has been little success in teaching common sense
Cheers
Russell
|
|
|
Post by sniffles on Feb 16, 2008 4:27:12 GMT
Sniffles You raise an interesting issue: common sense Common sense appears to be a mental faculty but it is labeled as a sense. Thus we might ask if there are some mental aspects that are sensory (experiential) rather than procedural (deductive or inductive) And while we might teach deduction and to a lesser extent, induction, there has been little success in teaching common sense Cheers Russell You know what, I never noticed that. It is classified as a sense? Like "the sixth sense." I think common sense is acquired from experiencing life on an everyday basis - so its is experiential. For instance I have never experience or observed a cow fly in the air - therefore my common sense tells me that cows can't fly. You can't teach this stuff; its acquired over a period of time. And I guess the more a person is in tune to his reality and life, as an observer, the more common sense the person should have. You can always beat around the bush and make reason make sense of something that counters ones common sense - it happened in "Science" all the time: Common sense tells me that an ocean can't just divide and leave bare ground, as the Bible says happened to the Red Sea... but you have some Scientists who "bend" or mickey-mouse this concept and tries to make it reasonable by theorizing that a great big earth quake causing a tsunami can theoretically displace the Red Sea and such and such... it sounds Reasonable if the scientists words and theories sounds acceptable, and is strong enough to beat your natural defense mechanism of doubt... but it churns you common sense and intuition. Science tells me with reason and rational theories that the sun is a big ball of fire in space that burns on fuel of hydrogen and helium; this sounds reasonable and rational, and you can deduce it all you want with everything you have academically learned; but it still makes your common sense and intuition feel funny inside: I know from common sense that a fire can't burn without air/oxygen; and i know their is no air in space. My common sense also tells me that something expendable like fuel, be it wood, or hydrogen and helium must be all used up after a while; but I am to believe that our sun is billions of years old and still has a billion more to go? Science can tell me with Deductive Reasoning and Rational theories how a baby is formed and made in the womb from the time it starts off as egg and sperm. Its all reasonable and rational; but my intuition and common sense tells me that something is not quite right; because if every cell of the fetus came from the same single cell, and each cell had the same DNA blueprint; then how does an hair cell know not to be a brain cell? What tells each cell what part of their identical DNA blueprint is especially theirs to follow? Therefore I think Reason is the lesser of the three: Intuition, Common Sense, then Reason.
|
|
Tamrin
Member
Nosce te ipsum
Posts: 3,586
|
Post by Tamrin on Feb 16, 2008 5:09:57 GMT
If all our common-sense notions about the universe were correct, then science would have solved the secrets of the universe thousands of years ago. The purpose of science is to peel back the layer of the appearance of the objects to reveal their underlying nature. In fact, if appearance and essence were the same thing, there would be no need for science.
Michio Kaku, in Hyperspace
|
|
|
Post by sniffles on Feb 16, 2008 5:41:08 GMT
If all our common-sense notions about the universe were correct, then science would have solved the secrets of the universe thousands of years ago. The purpose of science is to peel back the layer of the appearance of the objects to reveal their underlying nature. In fact, if appearance and essence were the same thing, there would be no need for science.
Michio Kaku, in Hyperspace Thats true. That's why they're a trio Tamrin. Science is great, but its always changing and growing because of new discoveries. I wouldn't sound very smart if I said I believed in the science of a hundred years ago; or if I still believed the world was flat (which some people do - they have their own website). If I said I believe in what science teaches me now; how would science and what science has discovered about the cosmos and reality be a hundred years from now? And how would that make me appear? We shouldn't toss everything out for science. Its one tool of many we need. And its becoming increasingly dogmatic these days. Science has left the scientific method behind. These modern scientists no longer hypothesize; test; and theorize any more. They just open a big book and tell you that if its not in there its not science. One thing I did learn in geometry class is a theory is just a guess based on observations until it is proven - then it becomes a postulate. I have never heard of a scientific Postulate being taught in school.
|
|